Paul, I understand that the aboriginal lands (if included), and administrative boundary, should be presented as ways, not multipolygons.
It is on my duty list! Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 14, 2012 15:24 To: 'Connors, Bernie (SNB)'; Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands I'm not so concerned with the aboriginal lands as with municipal boundaries. Aboriginal lands are unlikely to span multiple sub-tiles unless they lie on an edge, but cities often cover several sub-tiles. Is converting the boundaries from polygons to linestrings an option? > -----Original Message----- > From: Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:56 AM > To: 'Bégin, Daniel'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands > > If the Aboriginal lands are easily available from another source > (GeoBase) and including them in Canvec.osm is going to make the data > more complex I think the aboriginal lands should be excluded from > Canvec.osm. > > -- > Bernie Connors, P.Eng > Service New Brunswick > (506) 444-2077 > 45°56'25.21"N, 66°38'53.65"W > www.snb.ca/geonb/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, 2012-02-14 09:05 > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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