To be fair....your example is from Canvec 4.0.....that's reaaaaaaaaaaallly old....was it possible that was a way of tagging back in the days? Or was it created initially as a polygon and was later converted to a relation?
Canvec 10.0 doesnt have the issues of double tagging, just overlapping On Jun 30, 2017 3:22 PM, "Jochen Topf" <joc...@remote.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 08:16:40PM +0200, Frank Steggink wrote: > > Maybe I'm not understanding it, but in the OSM inspector [1] I just see > one > > case of old style multipolygon, in Manitoba. Last week, when you posted > your > > original message, I just saw one case in New Brunswick. IIRC, it was a > park, > > not even from the Canvec import. > > The types of problems I am talking about don't show up in the OSM > inspector. This is not old-style multipolygons (where tags are on the > outer ways and not on the relation), but multipolygons where the tags > are on the relation AND on the ways. > > > In the OSM inspector other errors can be seen, but the most prevalent > one is > > "Touching rings". Maybe indeed a case of suboptimal mapping, but nothing > > which seems urgent to me. > > > > Here is an example of a forest multipolygon, imported by me > > (canvec_fsteggink). It is still version 1, but it has tags on the > relation, > > not on the rings (except for the quarries): [2] > > This is from Canvec v7.0. IIRC, we started at v6.0, and the last version > I > > know of is v10.0. Maybe v6.0 had wrong tagging, but I'm not seeing any > such > > cases in the OSM inspector. > > > > So, I'd like to ask you to give a couple of examples where data imported > > from Canvec is clearly wrong with regard to old style multipolygon > tagging. > > Here are all cases in Canada (not only those from the imports): > https://tmp.jochentopf.com/954226a3acab882d28d8500ddef820 > 3d/same-tags-ca.pbf > > Here is one example where you can clearly see the problem: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/541821 > > > When we have clear examples, then it might be easier to come up with a > plan > > how to fix it. But so far, I see absolutely no reason why Canada stands > out > > in a negative way. Yes, we all acknowledge that Canvec data is > suboptimal, > > but as others already have pointed out, mapping everything by hand in > > especially remote areas is nearly impossible. > > Canada stands out in a negative way, because > a) there are so many problems. Nearly a third of the cases worldwide are in > Canada and > b) most of these problems are probably caused by one little program, the > program used to convert/import the CanVec data. > > Mapping Canada "by hand" might be difficult because it is such a huge > country and there aren't that many mappers. But the same arguments goes > for why you have to be extra careful importing data. If you break > something, there are not enough people to fix it manually. And, yes, > errors do happen. And if we find them, we fix them and move on. But > errors from imports can be so huge there aren't enough people there to > fix them manually. So I think it is the job of those who did the import > in the first place, to fix their work. If you add data to OSM you take > on a certain responsibility. If you add more data, you have a larger > responsibility. But saying: We don't have the manpower, so we are taking > a shortcut and then, when it turns out the shortcut wasn't so short > after all, whining that you don't have the manpower to fix it. That > can't be the excuse. > > Jochen > -- > Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org https://www.jochentopf.com/ > +49-351-31778688 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
