I agree with James, until we have mapped all trees as nodes (!-) removing current forest is not a good idea. OSM works that way… you have some free time, you add/correct the data you can. Without doing this, the map would simply be empty (and we couldn’t see the white rectangles we are talking about!)
Daniel From: James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 06:13 To: Gordon Dewis Cc: Antoine Beaupré; Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada 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<mailto:gor...@pinetree.org>> wrote: On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:12 PM, Antoine Beaupré <anar...@orangeseeds.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
