1) start fresh (streets/road-wise), enjoy correct topology and overall
> consistency for the whole Canada from the start, and correct/add to
> out-of-date data from GeoBase.
Under no circumstances should we be deleting already collected data.
Correct data is far less important than mappers and
Ah, I hate replying to myself.
Another issue is relationship of street data to other features from Canvec.
I'm pretty sure that e.g. bridges are aligned between road data and
river and railroads in GeoBase. I'm also pretty sure it's not the case for a
lot of current OSM data.
One other idea th
There's an additional complication for adding UUIDs: different
topologies, for e.g. dual carriageways. I'm seeing a lot of cases where
OSM has a single way for a stret, but Geobase has two. So, assigning UUIDs
can not be a mechanical process. In fact, I'll argue that matching
Geobase UUIDs is simi
William Lachance wrote:
Look at this from another angle: Should we split up all the existing OSM
road data that people have put in to add in GeoBase UUID information?
The simple answer is that at some point we are going to have to.
If we want to add the attributes available from GeoBase, and to
http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/news/index.html
Might be of interest
1. I am not sure if these are already covered by the CanVec data Sam has
been working on but Land Cover and Aboriginal lands are now part of GeoBase
2. GeoBase has recently released updated roads for BC, Nunavut, PEI and
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, William Lachance wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I frankly just don't see the purpose in
> tagging our data differently from the rest of the world, when we can
> achieve the desired end (comparing OSM data to geobase) in an analytical
> way simply by comparing the ge
Let me be a devil's advocate here for a while. The 2 alternatives that make
more sense are
- Delete the existing street data and start fresh with GeoBase, and always
maintain the UUIDs properly. Given how many inconsistencies/topology
errors there are in OSM data for Greater Vancouver, it
- Austin Henry arranged a host of electrons thusly: -
> It means I've got more work to do, but there should be less effort
> after-the-fact, so I don't mind re-running the exports & roadmatcher
> bits. I might have the data in by the end of the week, given work &
> life & all that jazz.
Well, bom
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, William Lachance wrote:
> Right, you have to split up a way if the tags change as you describe.
> However, there's also the (at the very least implied) convention that a
> way should not be split if the tags don't change.
Yup, that's what I was doing when working
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 19:24 -0600, James Ewen wrote:
>
> > This basically amounts to
> > asking everyone who writes tools/products that read/write OSM data
> > (which go far beyond the OSMARender and Potlatch editor, see for
> example
> > the developer tools at http://cloudmade.com) to accomodate
10 matches
Mail list logo
