I agree that forest that are way too costly in time should be removed, but they should also be replaced with something(better) not just mass removed, oh well we'll get to it later kind of thing
On Sep 1, 2016 8:05 PM, "Sam Dyck" <samueld...@gmail.com> wrote: > I took a break to make supper, so I'm going to have to respond > collectively. > > - Sammuell and sammuell_imports are my accounts. Both the forest and the > lake are from Canvec data imported together as in the same tile. I Imported > the whole thing (I would never import over existing data that carelessly), > and take responsibility for that. > > - As my subsequent email showed, I missed the part about water/forest > overlaps in Paul's email. Both and other people on this list have explained > our feelings about this, but I will accept DWGs decision. > > - Per Michael's suggestion: This is constructive, but I do not feel that > it is feasible because of the tiled structure of Canvec. To try and shift > the forest layer over would make the problem worse. > > - Removal of the forest layer may be the best solution here. However there > are many places in where the data matches up perfectly. Speaking only of > areas where I am the primary importer, most of the forests in Ontario west > of Thunder Bay would have to go, which is unfortunate because some have > been manually corrected, though not enough to save them. Much (but > certainly not all) of the forests in Manitoba could be saved with minimal > effort. > > - If/when this is done we could look at ways to restore these forests. In > areas that are mostly forest it shouldn't be too difficult to fill them > using large multipolygons. > > Sam > > _______________________________________________ > 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
