Hi Pierre,
Regarding the duplicated ways, I'll get to that by replying Daniel's mail.
Regarding the toponyms, the user I'm having contact with is refering to
Sûreté de Québec, for example this page:
http://www.sq.gouv.qc.ca/poste-mrc-des-pays-d-en-haut/organisation/carte-detaillee-pays-haut.pdf
I don't know if both data sources can be considered public domain. As
far as I know, the guidelines for the federal government don't apply to
provincial and local governments. See also the discussion about
importing data from the Ville de Québec.
Frank
On 21-8-2012 20:59, Pierre Béland wrote:
Frank
The NEtiquette is always important in these circumstances. Lets hope
this mapper will learn how to deal with the community.
I Looked rapidly at the data.I see a multipolygon natural=wood
Relation : 2362646 that contains 72 members. I see that you imported a
wooded area way=176778952 that is part of this relation. It also
overlaps for the 2/3 with a lake way=57988179. I see similar situation
with way 176778559. Unless I missed something, my understanding is
that you should simply remove ways 176778952 and 176778559 and any
others that duplicate what is already defined by relation 2362646.
The Quebec toponyms may sometime be more complete then Canvec. But not
all the lakes have names and it is not easy to find infos for a
specific area. You can search for a specific name at
http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/.
See
http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/ToposWeb/recherche.aspx?s=lac-ouimet&x=0&y=0
for lac Ouimet results
Pierre
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De :* Frank Steggink <stegg...@steggink.org>
*À :* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
*Envoyé le :* Mardi 21 août 2012 13h32
*Objet :* [Talk-ca] Canvec import issues
Hi,
Today I was contacted by someone inquiring (with a somewhat
hostile tone) after the Canvec import I've done over the weekend
northwest of Montréal. He was not really happy with the way how
the import has handled. The way the Canvec data is currently
provided, leaves some room for improvement. I'm not sure if all
his issues have been discussed in the past (since I haven't
followed all Canvec discussions, especially in the beginning), but
I could see some merit in some of the point.
Some examples he provided come from the Mt. Tremblant area [1].
Note that the lakes (and most of the streams) were imported
previously by someone else, based on NHN data, but the same issue
plays with the Canvec data itself. (This left me to the task to
leave the Canvec lakes out of the upload, as well as most streams.)
On the left you see Lac Ouimet. He mentioned that a large part of
the ways are duplicated. The outer boundary of the wooded area is
a separate polygon from the lake itself. However, Lac Gauthier on
the right is a different case. This lake has been "cut out" from
the woods, and I left the inner boundary intact. JOSM is not
complaining about this. Since dealing with multipolygons remains a
sticky issue, I have not done that. I think it would be better to
take care of these issues with some tool. Although using a tool is
considered "dangerously" (and rightfully so!), dealing with
multipolygons is prone to errors as well.
Another issue is that some lakes do not have names, but contain a
separate node (not part of any of the ways) with natural=water and
name=* tags. I can only assume that this comes from the source
data. In many cases it is hard to determine the extent of the
lake, since it can gradually taper into a river. This was not
mentioned directly by the user, but I thought he was referring to
this.
His issue turned out to be somewhat different. There is a place
node near Lac Gauthier, with the same name. I explained to this
that this must be the name of a hamlet. The non-official tag
"place=locality" is probably due to this confusion. This name is
also visible on the original topo map [2].
Furthermore he noticed that I have duplicated his address nodes
and ways. This was an omission, so I have corrected this. I scan
the existing data in order not to duplicate existing features. Of
course this is prone to errors as well, especially in a large area
which is void of address nodes and ways, except for two ways
around a lake...
I'm not asking anyone for "solutions". I can easily think about
them as well, but that doesn't make the problem go away. Thinking
about the solution is the easiest part, but working it out and
implementing it is much more difficult. It is more than simply
typing in some code and then run it over the data. Instead of
doing that, I have tried to explain him something about the hybrid
data model OSM is using (not purely geographical, but also not
purely topological). And of course there is also the gap between
idealists and realists. I see the current state of OSM as the
status quo, so I take it for granted. I think that Canvec falls
within that status quo situation as well, otherwise the OSM data
offered by NRCan would have looked differently, after all those
years of discussions and reviews.
I have invited this user to discuss the issues he found on
talk-ca. I think that would be much more constructive than having
him directing all those issues to me, since they occur far beyond
his own backyard as well...
Regards,
Frank
[1]
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.1749&lon=-74.5535&zoom=14&layers=M
[2]
ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/canmatrix2/50k_tif/031/j/canmatrix2_031j02_tif.zip
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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