Kevin and Denis, and others, Thank you all for the amazing answers to my question.
It all makes sense. Later we could talk about writing up an approach to get there iteratively, I think we all agree it is needed at some point. Bjenk -----Original Message----- From: talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org] Sent: March-07-17 1:52 PM To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 109, Issue 13 Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to talk-ca@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Municipal boundaries (kevinfarrugia) 2. Re: Municipal boundaries (Denis Carriere) 3. Re: Municipal boundaries (Adam Martin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 13:38:00 -0500 From: kevinfarrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com> To: "J.P. Kirby" <webmas...@the506.com>, James <james2...@gmail.com> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries Message-ID: <vdtwscp5e6030w9hxadr2rqj.1488911880...@email.android.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally (at least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries. In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and how boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are definitely important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need for extremely redundant addr tags that are used for cities. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message --------From: "J.P. Kirby" <webmas...@the506.com> Date: 2017-03-07 1:21 PM (GMT-05:00) To: James <james2...@gmail.com> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for instance they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at all and are just StatsCan creations. I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added into OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote: CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in reality On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote: > > … Any more thoughts? If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they don't belong in OSM. “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be: 1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have invented. 2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without permission. 3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for themselves if your data is correct. 4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to others how to re-use the data When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world as it can be observed by someone physically there.” — How We Map <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM. Stewart -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20170307/68f24873/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 13:50:03 -0500 From: Denis Carriere <carriere.de...@gmail.com> To: kevinfarrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries Message-ID: <cam4+tg2lftfu9qs_m7i0kruq8rwrd_t4q_2s_mkc69xfscl...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" +1 Kevin again :) Boundaries are a MUST if ever you want better geocoding. We just need to deconflict the boundaries that are different from StatsCan & the local municipalities (these boundaries should be "authoritative" if they exist). Remember, not all townships have a full GIS team working for them, there's going to be many areas in Canada that StatsCan does have the "best" data. *~~~~~~* *Denis Carriere* *GIS Software & Systems Specialist* On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM, kevinfarrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally > (at least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries. > > In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and > how boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are > definitely important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need > for extremely redundant addr tags that are used for cities. > > > Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > -------- Original message -------- > From: "J.P. Kirby" <webmas...@the506.com> > Date: 2017-03-07 1:21 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: James <james2...@gmail.com> > Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries > > And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for > instance they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at > all and are just StatsCan creations. > > I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added > into OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually > there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but > they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in > reality > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote: >> > >> > … Any more thoughts? >> >> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather >> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they >> don't belong in OSM. >> >> “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be: >> 1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have >> invented. >> 2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without >> permission. >> 3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for >> themselves if your data is correct. >> 4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to >> others how to re-use the data >> >> When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world >> as it can be observed by someone physically there.” >> >> — How We Map <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map> >> >> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM. >> >> Stewart > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20170307/467df2ac/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:21:18 -0330 From: Adam Martin <s.adam.mar...@gmail.com> To: kevinfarrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries Message-ID: <cadqb88t_daicneusrux2tftbj0faw6dbrtrb83smvodyygx...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" When in doubt, consult the local legislation if possible. Most of the towns in my province are afforded land via an Act under the law. It sets out boundaries which are determined either through coordinates or by describing the line with reference to local landscape features. On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:08 PM, kevinfarrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally > (at least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries. > > In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and > how boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are > definitely important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need > for extremely redundant addr tags that are used for cities. > > > Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > -------- Original message -------- > From: "J.P. Kirby" <webmas...@the506.com> > Date: 2017-03-07 1:21 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: James <james2...@gmail.com> > Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries > > And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for > instance they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at > all and are just StatsCan creations. > > I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added > into OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually > there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but > they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in > reality > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote: >> > >> > … Any more thoughts? >> >> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather >> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they >> don't belong in OSM. >> >> “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be: >> 1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have >> invented. >> 2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without >> permission. >> 3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for >> themselves if your data is correct. >> 4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to >> others how to re-use the data >> >> When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world >> as it can be observed by someone physically there.” >> >> — How We Map <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map> >> >> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM. >> >> Stewart > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20170307/70ec4026/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ------------------------------ End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 109, Issue 13 **************************************** _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
