Hi, I think to know what is going on. I've tried to convert the residential areas of 031I08 myself, and I got an OSM file with an outer polygon. However, the outer polygon has no tags. Also, it looks that Sam's batch files run shp-to-osm with the -t parameter, which suppresses the output of features without any tags.
Solution: * shp-to-osm needs to be adjusted, so that the outer polygon will get the tags, but the inner polygons will not. * shp-to-osm should be called without the -t parameter. Is this possible? Frank Frank Steggink wrote: > Hi Sam, > > I've just downloaded some CanVec data, and had a look at sheets 031I07 > and -08. I wonder what you mean by uploading all "sub-residential > files". I understand that the data is separated over multiple files, > because of certain limitations. In the residential OSM files I also see > no polygons with a multipolygon relationship of "outer". So,this means > that the outlines of places like Trois-Rivieres and others are missing. > The same issue is going on with wooded areas. The data is converted with > Canvec2OSM version 0.9.4. > > I had a closer look at the raster file (from Toporama) of sheet 031I08, > because there is much less data, and I looked at the village of Gentilly > (see [1]). This is in the center of the sheet. The raster file suggests > that a multipolygon relationship should be in place, but the vector file > (BS_1370009_2_Residential_area0.osm) shows only the two inner polygons. > Are the outer polygons stored in a different file, or are they not > converted at all? The shape of the outer polygon doesn't look to be > complex, so I don't think the max_nodes threshold would be exceeded. > Looking at the OSM file: there is only one multipolygon relationship in > it, but it only refers to the two inner polygons, and not to any outer > polygon at all. > > One note regarding multipolygons: the inner polygons shouldn't have any > tags at all. See [2]. > > Anyways, some clarifications about what is going on, and how the data > should be interpreted would be welcome. I'm reluctant to import data > which looks not correct. For the rest, keep up your good work :) > > Regards, > > Frank > > [1] http://osm.org/go/cKHX9ApT- > [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon > > Sam Vekemans wrote: > >> Hi Richard, >> i think your refering to the large multi-polygons such as >> 'residential_area', and it 'appears' to be inverted. >> >> Here's the majic; when all the sub- residential.osm files are uploaded >> to OSM, it renders correctly. >> In JOSM, you need to zoom out and load the area, to see it. >> >> I think i'll load a region of NFLD in the next cuple days to test my >> hypothises. >> >> Sam >> >> ps. I cc'd talk-ca as this was mentioned b4. >> >> On 9/22/09, Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Dear gentlemen, >>> >>> I've had a look at some of Sam's test areas. In 1435 files there are >>> zero occurrences of Relation=outer. >>> >>> So at some point we started calling relation=outer, relation=inner or >>> completely dropping outer relations by mistake. >>> >>> I do still see rare nested ways, but both are marked as inner, and are >>> on separate layers after --maxnodes >>> >>> I've run 0.6.1 again with an old rules file and see the same problem >>> so I believe that this is an issue in shp-to-osm. >>> >>> Ian can you check a 0.5.0 - generated file and see if it contains any >>> "outer"? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
