Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work.
Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? > -----Original Message----- > From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM > To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands > > Bonjour Tyler, > > Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on > GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. > > The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal > Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K > map sheet coverage. > > Best regards, > Daniel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] > Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands > > > It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of > > Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community > > concerning the tags/values to use? > > I've found some links to... > > - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land > > - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 > > - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 > > I'm curious how this information would be represented given the > distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that > administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it > would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking > to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? > > How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where > they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? > > When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, > cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative > and admin_level hierarchy. > We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, > etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. > > So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: > boundary=aboriginal_land > > Tyler > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
