Bonjour All, Paul propose not to include aboriginal lands in the next Canvec.osm release.
I would like to have more feedback from the community before excluding it :-) Regards, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 18:55 To: Bégin, Daniel Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Then I don't think they should be included in canvec.osm > -----Original Message----- > From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:04 AM > To: Paul Norman > Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands > > Bonjour again Paul, > > An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area > split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product > for the moment :-( > > Daniel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] > Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35 > To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands > > 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
