Bonjour,
Je suis un nouveau participant au projet OSM, par contre je ne suis pas un débutant en cartographie et je saisis assez bien les termes de la discussion en cours. Mon intérêt est le canot-camping en région éloigné et la plus-part de mes zones dintérêt sont au nord du 49 (au Québec), qui à ma grande déception sont actuellement vides. Les processus à mettre en place pour cartographier en zone urbaine ou semi urbaine sont beaucoup plus complexes et fondamentalement différents de ceux qui peuvent être utilisé dans la zone de la forêt boréale. En insistant pour que le processus ou les standards soient uniques on arrive à un cul-sac et beaucoup dirritation. Il y a peut-être deux stratégies à adopter. Personne ne peut faire de relevé terrain personnel de lhydrographie ou de la végétation en forêt boréale. Les données CANVEC sont la seule source libre consistante pour cartographier les phénomènes naturels dans la zone nordique au Canada et limportation massive de données est la seule qui permet de le faire dans un temps raisonnable. Pour beaucoup de territoire, cest la seule attention quils ne recevront jamais. Pour les autres, le redressement des données sera fait en fonction de lintérêt de bénévoles pour ces territoires. Je pense que les zones vides doivent être comblés le plus rapidement possible par des gens dexpérience de façon à ce que les nouveaux puissent commencer à travailler sur ces territoires. En passant, jai un peu dexpérience dans lutilisation de FME pour convertir les données CANVEC pour construire des cartes électroniques et je peux contribuer dans cette zone. (English translation is at best approximate. French version should be consider official ;-)) . I am new to the OSM project, but i have some background in mapping. I understand some of the discussion going on. My interest is whitewater travelling in backcountry and most of it are north of the 49e, an area now empty in Quebec. The process for mapping in urban and semi-urban area are very complex and very different than the one that can be use in boreal forest. Insisting that the same process and standard be apply lead to a dead end and frustration. Different strategies should be apply. Nobody can make personal ground survey of hydrography and other natural object in boreal forest. Canvec data are the only free consistant data source for that area and massive importation of natural elements the only way to cover such a large area. For most of this territory, it is the only attention that it will ever have. For the small part that is effectively use for something, than people like me, having interest, will be able to upgrade the data to OSM full standard. I think that the nordic empty area should be populated quickly by experience people so that newcomer can begin to work in these area. By the way, I have some experience in using FME to convert CANVEC data for building electronic map and I can do some work in this field. Pierre Lamoureux Quebec, Qc De : Pierre Béland [mailto:infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr] Envoyé : 13 novembre 2012 16:22 À : Frank Steggink; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Internal CanVec conflicts Frank Steggink november 13 2012 15h37 answering Paul Norman > However, time is limited, so I eventually decided to stop. The reasons which motivated me doing imports are no longer enough to continue. It is > partially due to the criticism of you and others. If my contributions are not accepted / acceptable, there is no reason to continue, so I can better stop. > I also think that OSM has caused a lot of awareness for open data, and governments are opening up much more. For example, also in the > Netherlands a lot of datasets have become open data, like the national road register, buildings, and topography. Of course, with the availability of > Canvec, this is also true in Canada. So for many geospatial professionals there is not much reason to continue OSM, except when you're interested > in areas for which no other alternative exists (cycling routes, historic buildings, etc.). Frank, I came too late to OSM to see the mapping parties like the ones you were participating in Sherbrooke. I think that we should come back to that spirit, For OSM to be a success in Canada, we need stronger local communities, pursue imports and improve over it. Lets compare us to France. Discussions on the Osm-France list show a well organize community, a lot of projects, servers, monitoring tools, blog, mapping parties even in schools, support of local communities, contacts with municipalities and other organizations. They show a very good dynamism. In comparison, I have to say that in Canada we not only have a blank map, we also have a blank participation. I would also like to see criticisms about imports accompanied with more suggestions to improve. Otherwise, it is just killing the OSM project. Pierre _____ De : Frank Steggink <stegg...@steggink.org> À : talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Mardi 13 novembre 2012 15h37 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Internal CanVec conflicts Hi Paul, It probably won't come to you as a surprise if I would say it is acceptable, but to a certain degree. A map with no data is not a map. A map with inconsistent data is still a map, but obviously something is not right. A map with perfectly consistent data doesn't need to tell the truth either. Remember the fantasy city someone added about a month ago? Furthermore, a map can become outdated. This is also true for OSM. Anyways, the reason I've been importing Canvec data is to provide more coverage, so others can work with it. OSM is a community project, and I think everyone has a share in it. This is one of the main reasons I started with OSM, because I believe in the ideals and goals. To you it might sound that importers like me are leaving a "big mess" behind for others to deal with. To me, it was a choice. The alternative would be either no data, or very sparse and incomplete data. It would take ages to "complete" the map, since there are not nearly as much mappers in Canada as there are in Germany. A map which is only half complete doesn't have half the value of a complete map, but way less. That's also the reason I imported forests in suburban areas. It can still be cleaned up later. Leaving the forest out of it leaves an ugly gap, and fixing it during the import is so time consuming the import would go on endlessly (which it does already...). Also, many or most people who are mapping with OSM do not have a mapping or geospatial background. Let me be clear, I think it is wonderful that they join OSM and step upon the learning curve to become a contributor. On the other hand, in many cases the quality of their contributions are not that great. I also don't like the fact that something is abandoned half-way (like the Canvec import). So the choice I made was to provide them and the rest of the community with some kind of baseline. With the Canvec data imported, it makes it easier for people to add POI's and other stuff. And while importing, I also fixed other errors which existed in the maps. Of course not all of them, but what would be reasonably possible from my armchair. Furthermore, the imports I've done about half a year ago were aimed at filling gaps between existing imports. It is a pretty daunting task, so it is no surprise many have stopped, and I just wanted to get the job done. However, time is limited, so I eventually decided to stop. The reasons which motivated me doing imports are no longer enough to continue. It is partially due to the criticism of you and others. If my contributions are not accepted / acceptable, there is no reason to continue, so I can better stop. I also think that OSM has caused a lot of awareness for open data, and governments are opening up much more. For example, also in the Netherlands a lot of datasets have become open data, like the national road register, buildings, and topography. Of course, with the availability of Canvec, this is also true in Canada. So for many geospatial professionals there is not much reason to continue OSM, except when you're interested in areas for which no other alternative exists (cycling routes, historic buildings, etc.). Frank On 10-11-2012 12:37, Paul Norman wrote: > CanVec data comes from multiple sources and this can lead to internal > inconsistencies. A common case is a new development where there used to be > trees. The tree data in CanVec might be older and show an area as forested > while there is newer road data indicating that the area has been developed. > An example of this type is > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.695 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.695&lon=-73.905&zoom=17> &lon=-73.905&zoom=17 although I have > seen many other cases of it. > > Another common case is the trees in water problem frequently found in BC. A > typical example is > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=58.648 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=58.648&lon=-123.911&zoom=17> &lon=-123.911&zoom=17 where there is > a conflict between the water data and the forest data. You need to view the > data as it doesn't show up on the rendering. > > Is it the communities view that it is okay to import CanVec without > reconciling the internal differences between the layers? > > My view is that importing data without resolving conflicts of this type > where it conflicts with either existing data or internally is not an > acceptable import and indicates the importer did not sufficiently review > what they were uploading. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
