<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=120273217-06072010>Bonjour Michael</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=120273217-06072010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=120273217-06072010>About accuracy: Canvec should usually be better than
10m (90%) for road network and 30m for other features. We know that Yahoo
imagery often have offsets. However, </SPAN></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=120273217-06072010>you better
have plenty of gps tracks to take a decision.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=120273217-06072010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=120273217-06072010>By the way, there is no park boundaries in Canvec
product -for the moment.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=120273217-06072010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=120273217-06072010>About contents: Yahoo imagery is usually more
up-to-date than Canvec - except for road network and for hydrography in some
provinces.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=120273217-06072010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=120273217-06072010>I agree with Richard, the details always matter.
You may sometime have to choose between accuracy and
completeness...</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=120273217-06072010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=120273217-06072010>Daniel</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> talk-ca-bounces@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-ca-bounces@openstreetmap.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>G. Michael
Carter<BR><B>Sent:</B> 6 juillet 2010 12:12<BR><B>To:</B>
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Talk-ca] Accuracy of CanVec vs
Yahoo?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>When importing the data do we favour yahoo existing data in OSM
(which is obviously traced from satellite imagery) or CanVec?
I'm assuming CanVec for parks would be based on official park boundaries rather
than yahoo, line of site on open spaces. So parks would be better
coming from CanVec. But what about buildings?<BR><BR>Mikey<BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=moz-signature>-- <BR><FONT size=2><B>G. Michael
Carter</B><BR></FONT><FONT color=#666666 size=2
face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Contact: H: 1-519-940-8935 | W:
1-905-267-8494 | M: 1-519-215-1869 | F: 1-519-941-0009 <BR>Google Talk: <A
href="xmpp:mikeycarter1974@gmail.com">xmpp:mikeycarter1974@gmail.com</A><BR><BR></FONT><A
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.9216&lon=-80.105&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF"><IMG
border=0 src="cid:120273217@06072010-1E6D"></A><A
href="http://livedvd.carterfamily.ca/"><IMG border=0
src="cid:120273217@06072010-1E74"></A> </DIV></BODY></HTML>