Yeah I have to run JOSM in 64 bit mode via the jnlp to manage such massive data amounts as the 32bit is slower and is limited about 1.4-1.6GB on windows and 2GB on linux because of how the heap works.
P.s. if someone feels up to it we could always map trees as node=tree On Aug 29, 2016 11:49 PM, "Gordon Dewis" <gor...@pinetree.org> wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:12 PM, Antoine Beaupré <anar...@orangeseeds.org> > wrote: > > On 2016-08-25 10:13:25, Gordon Dewis wrote: > > Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from Canvec in > the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal with > compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in the tools I > was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since. > > > Yeah, that's what I figured.... I hope my comment didn't come across as > criticizing the work that was done importing that data into OSM - I know > how challenging and frustrating that work can be. > > But I must admit it seems a little rough to have those patches up > there. I don't mind the "seams" between the CANVEC imported blocks, > which don't seem to show up on the main map anymore anyways. But > the *missing* blocks are really problematic and confusing. And they show > up not only all the way up north and in weird places, but in critical > areas. for example, here's a blank spot right north of Canada's capital: > > http://osm.org/go/cIhYCSU-?m= > > It seems a whole area was just not imported up there... oops! This shows > up here and there in seemingly random places. > > > Whoever was working on it was probably struggling with the tiles and > subtitles in Canvec and threw in the towel. I was working on the forests > around Golden Lake, for example, and ran into problems and limitations with > the tools I was using at the time. I would love to import more, but it’s a > daunting task. > > Another problem I noticed is when trying to merge “new” forests with > existing forests was the existing forests would disappear because the > topology changed, similar to problems you can see with lakes and islands. > That alone was enough to make me back off and undo the inadvertent damage. > > I wonder if it wouldn't be better to remove parts of the CANVEC import > until we can figure out how to better import them in the future, if, of > course, we have a documented way of restoring the state of affairs we > have now... As was mentionned elsewhere, it seems to me that the data > that is there now somewhat makes it more difficult to go forward and > hides more important data (like park boundaries). > > > Unless the parts of Canvec are going to be replaced with more > comprehensive coverage, I think that removing the existing forests would > not be a Good Thing. > > I believe it would be more important to map out park boundaries than > actual forest limits which, quite unfortunately, change in pretty > dramatic ways in Québec, due to massive logging that has been happening > for decades. > > > Park boundaries are mostly in already, aren’t they? They are fairly easy > features to import compared to forests. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
