On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Colin McGregor <colin.mc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/11/08, Matt Wilkie <matt.wil...@gov.yk.ca> wrote: >> I've been following the conversations with interest, and find myself >> wondering what is the value for OSM in ingesting wholesale the public >> geospatial offerings of Canadian federal and regional governments? These >> are big organisations with full time staff and big budgets dedicated to >> processing and updating the data. Why should/would a handful of >> volunteers expend the effort in digesting this volume of data? Wouldn't >> it be simpler to utilise WMS services? > > Simpler yes, better maybe not. > >> The usecase for ingesting roads and trails is fairly clear, people are >> actually adding attributes and adding and adjusting geometry to more >> closely match the reality they see. I don't see the same potential value >> adding activity for natural features like hydrology, contours, satellite >> imagery, etc. Am I missing something? > > Elevation contours can be of real interest, I gather some bicycle > groups in Germany have used elevation data in OSM for things like > planning tour routes (not only do bicycle rides want limits on > distance/day they also want limits on sudden changes in elevation (no > steep hills)). > > As for hydrology, by attitude would be, if it isn't much trouble to > add, why not?
I am very much in favour of importing all of Geobase, but only when the db can let users do selective pulls. So for right now, I think we should import: -the transportation network -the hydrology network exluding watershed boundaries -political boundaries -park/landuse boundaries -coastlines -water features We should not upload -elevation data -anything else For reference, opencyclemap and all the various elevation driven mapping stuffs are adding in the elevation data after the pull from OSM. Corey7 _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca