hi,<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Kevin Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:haietlik@draconic.ca">haietlik@draconic.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 04/04/2010 8:38 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote:<br>
> Hi Kevin,<br>
> As we were chatting earlier..<br>
> (cc:talk-ca list)<br>
><br>
> I just want to show you a sample.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-123.8369687&minlat=48.7525877&maxlon=-123.7812077&maxlat=48.7667345&box=yes" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-123.8369687&minlat=48.7525877&maxlon=-123.7812077&maxlat=48.7667345&box=yes</a><br>
> <<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-123.8369687&minlat=48.7525877&maxlon=-123.7812077&maxlat=48.7667345&box=yes" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-123.8369687&minlat=48.7525877&maxlon=-123.7812077&maxlat=48.7667345&box=yes</a>><br>
> <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4329006" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4329006</a><br>
><br>
> It appears that the National Protected area's file DOES contain<br>
> provincial park boundaries.<br>
><br>
> I've converted & created 11 .osm files. and i think it's best to<br>
> just copy in 1 at a time, as there is no rush.<br>
><br>
> This one is interesting because the Cowichan Vally Regional District<br>
> ALSO has the parks file (but i think it's just for regional parks)<br>
</div>It has regional, municipal, and provincial parks, though it only has a<br>
few of the parks in the other municipalities and it only gives them<br>
names, It doesn't have a field to indicate which parks are at which<br>
level. And it doesn't include the portion of PRNP that overlaps the<br>
CVRD. And actually I was doing the integration for it while you<br>
uploaded that test. I'd already started uploading it when checked the<br>
map and saw the addition.<br></blockquote><div><br>Ya, the data appears to have mainly the Provincial & National Parks. <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> Anyway... i was thinking creating a new tag<br>
> "boundary=provincial_park" kind of like how we have the proposal for<br>
> boundary=aborigional_lands.<br>
<br>
</div>It bothers me a little as it's something of a Canadian specific term.<br>
</blockquote><div>as 'state_park' would be the USA equivalent.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">I'd kind of prefer to see national_park replaced with a more generic<br>
term, and then use operator or admin_level. As it is I made the<br>
provincial parks in the CVRD data national_park with "operator=BC<br>
Parks". </blockquote><div>ok, what i did was list it as 'boundary=national_park' and didn't include an operator tag, As i think it would be on a park by park basis, as to who exactly runs it.<br> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">The rest are either leisure=park or leisure=nature_reserve (for<br>
"Nature Parks") with the the municipality they are in as the operator.<br></blockquote><div><br>I've also changed the "is_in=*" tag to "address:province=*" and for french "address:province:fr"=*<br>
i think that makes more sense, since this helps with name finding much better. (As all of these parks technically have their own mailing address. As they have an 'operator'. Even if the Operator is in another part of the country, there is always a phone number to call.<br>
<br>I didn't want to list 'Parks Canada' as this isn't an 'official list' of what exactly are under this jurisdiction.<br><br>So ya. This will be the only sample i load for now. It will be interesting to see if there is a difference from what the CVRD data has. Please copy-in that same park over top of what i just loaded. (so we can see a difference). <br>
<br>And only copy-in a few parks. Probably Northern Ontario where i'm working on the Voyageur Trail. Im just updating the wiki with the source files now.<br><br>Note to the rest of the talk-ca list: We will also see a difference between what The province of Ontario has in it's shp files for the parks. when compared to the National NRCan data. (it might be from the same source) and if the geometry is 'identical' we will know that it is.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Sam<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Kevin Smith <<a href="mailto:haietlik@draconic.ca">haietlik@draconic.ca</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><div style="visibility: hidden; display: inline;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup"></div><style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup { position:absolute; z-index:9999; padding: 0px 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 240px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 13px;}</style><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML">
</div>