<!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 8.00.6001.19046"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=676144613-18052011>Hi Samuel,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=676144613-18052011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=676144613-18052011>about a year ago, I removed natural=island ways
from the Canvec data. Unless I'm confused (it appends sometime !-) it was
applied for Release 7...</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=676144613-18052011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=676144613-18052011>The problem was that islands were/are overlaying all
other features on rendering, including corresponding natural=wood features (ie :
wooded islands renders white spot instead of green)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=676144613-18052011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=676144613-18052011>If you still have natural=island features you
should be in an area where the Release 7 could not be produced (about
30 files for the country)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=676144613-18052011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=676144613-18052011>About the ghost ways, it was decided to create the
Canvec product that way to ease partial/layer import (for example, import
hydrography without wooded areas). However, once you have modified the data
to merge both features, I don't see the need to keep ghost
ways. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676144613-18052011></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>R<SPAN
class=676144613-18052011>egards,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676144613-18052011></SPAN><SPAN
class=676144613-18052011></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2>D<SPAN
class=676144613-18052011>aniel</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> Samuel Longiaru [mailto:longiaru@shaw.ca]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> May 18, 2011 09:42<BR><B>To:</B> talk-ca<BR><B>Subject:</B>
[Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Good morning everyone,<BR><BR>I've been working for the last couple
of months importing Canvec data into south-central BC and have almost completed
the eastern half of 92I. I also have been lurking on the MkGMap list and
one of the comments there today got me thinking that maybe I've been doing
something wrong. Just wanted to get some comment here if I might. I
can go back and fix things if need be.<BR><BR>The procedure I have been using
for importing is essentially a reflection of what I would normally do should I
be mapping an area from scratch. I select a feature like wood, wetland,
water, etc. from my CanVec data layer, check it against the existing OSM, merge
where appropriate and delete the feature from my CanVec data layer so I can keep
track of what I have done. At the end of this process, I am usually left
with a couple of things in the CanVec layer which I discard. For example,
after merging "wood", I delete it from the CanVec layer and in many cases am
left with another untagged way that follows the wood boundary. This way
has no tags at all and is not part of any relationship. As it normally
would not be present should I have just traced the wood using Potlatch or JOSM,
I delete it and do not import it into OSM. I have also been ignoring the
natural=land tags that appear on islands in lakes. I have not been
importing this tag since if I understand things correctly, it is sufficient to
have islands tagged only as inner members of relationships. As
a check, I have gone back and examined the rendered OSM maps, and all wood and
islands are rendering correctly. I have also imported some of my imported
CanVec data into my Garmin Nuvi through Lambertus's site and all render
correctly as well.<BR><BR>In response to a query on the MkGMap list as to why
oceans were not rendering as blue on someone's Garmin (I have this problem too
by the way) the comment was made that islands needed to be tagged as
natural=land. I'm not sure that is actually the case but it did get me
thinking about the island tags I have been discarding and the other superfluous
CanVec data I have also been tossing.<BR><BR>Is it OK to toss these natural=land
tags? And what is going on with these ghost ways that appear under under
the boundaries to wooded areas? OK to toss them as well?
<BR> <BR><BR> </BODY></HTML>