Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping of bilingual destination signs

[J.P. Kirby]

On 2017-10-03, at 12:33 AM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> Hi J.P.
> 
> This sounds reasonable.  Do we have a map that shows which areas of the 
> province are French area vs English area.  For us non-NBers.   Or I suppose 
> one could guess by looking at the existing tags there.  (I would assume 
> Fredericton is English area?)  If we have a list then could update the NB 
> wiki page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_Brunswick

The general rule is that southern and western NB is English, northern and 
eastern is French; but there are exceptions, and a couple places like Bathurst 
and Campbellton are 50/50. 

But yes, you can almost always tell from the tags and the street names 
themselves (e.g. "St. Mary's" vs "Sainte-Marie").

JPK


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping of bilingual destination signs

[J.P. Kirby]

On 2017-10-02, at 12:22 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Are there any NB mappers here? If not we can extract the most active mappers 
> from the data and ask directly. (That is how we usually go about this if we 
> have a local question where nobody from the area seems to be on the national 
> mailing list.)
> 
> Martijn van Exel
> skype: mvexel

I live in NB but haven't been involved in tagging these particular signs. While 
mapping street names, I tend to use "name=x Street" and "name:fr=Rue x" in 
English-speaking areas of the province, with the opposite in French areas. I 
see no reason we can't do something similar with destination signs, even if the 
double-colon may look unwieldy. 

After all it is, officially, "Regent Street" in English and "Rue Regent" in 
French, not "Rue Regent Street" in both.

JPK
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[J.P. Kirby]

And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for instance 
they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at all and are 
just StatsCan creations.

I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added into 
OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James  wrote:
> 
> CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually there's 
> a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but they have 
> been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in reality
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
>> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
>> >
>> > … Any more thoughts?
>> 
>> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
>> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
>> don't belong in OSM.
>> 
>>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>>1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
>> invented.
>>2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
>> permission.
>>3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
>> themselves if your data is correct.
>>4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
>> others how to re-use the data
>> 
>>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>> 
>>  — How We Map 
>> 
>> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>> 
>>  Stewart
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[J.P. Kirby]

On 2015-07-22, at 10:39 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:
 Since then, the document (a) is used by some contributors to recode primary 
 roads to trunk because it is cited in the Canadian tagging guideline (c). 
 IMHO, the problem is that this document (a) defines 3 Route Categories (Core, 
 Feeder, Northern and Remote) that does not fit with OSM highway definitions.
  
 I prefer looking at OSM highway as “infrastructure categories” –my 
 understanding of OSM definitions– rather than as “strategic categories” as 
 described in (a) and partially promoted in (c). However, both are of interest 
 as long they are applied consistently (d).

In my opinion, the strategic category approach better fits the spirit of the 
British classification system that OSM highway tagging is based on. There is no 
regard whatsoever for access control there - I think there are even some 
controlled access secondary roads. 

It's the approach I've been using for my tagging in the Maritimes. I (and 
apparently others) have been using that National Highway System map to define 
trunk roads in the absence of any other Canadian equivalent to the British 
trunk system.

Just my 2 cents….
JPK___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Medicine Hat, Alberta

[J.P. Kirby]

The same user made up entire towns in Saskatchewan snd elsewhere. As soon as 
legit editors started calling him out he quit.

Safe to say it is vandalism and can be easily removed.

Sent from my iPhone

On 2013-01-25, at 8:56 AM, leuty le...@immerda.ch wrote:

 Hello Canadian Community, bonjour
 
 While fixing connectivity errors using maproulette I found the following
 location in Medicine Hat, Alberta, CA.
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.06165lon=-110.69818zoom=16layers=M
 
 The streets mapped by user Yorii are done in a very strange way (not
 connected, messed up connection of other roads). IMHO this seems a bit
 like someone was toying around with an editor or the redaction bot
 messed it up (who knows). Since they don't have a source=* tag I don't
 know where the info of their existence comes from.
 
 Bing imagery in this region was taken on 2010-06-23 and the streets were
 added on 2011-07-15. Consequently, it could very well be that they were
 built after Bing img was taken. It is hard for me to verify this form my
 armchair in Switzerland and I already contacted the user Yorii, but he
 didn't respond and made his last edit a year ago.
 
 Is there newer Imaginary available for this region? Or is anybody living
 there who could go out and verify their existence?
 
 Thanks and again: Sorry if I make false acquisitions, this is not my
 intention. I just want to fix it..
 
 yours sincerely, bien cordialement
 
 Leuty
 
 
 PS: Please keep me CCed since I am not subscribed to talk-ca.
 
 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca