<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2015-01-28 11:14 PM, Richard Weait
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGwUD5us6QSLP6=Lmyybf5bF2p1uKgD8B-6gC1jhxz3G_jn+pQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>You should not proceed with this import. The plan
description on the wiki has several show-stopper problems.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If anyone was wondering about context, here's the plan:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yorkregion_GIS/York_Region_Data_Imports">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yorkregion_GIS/York_Region_Data_Imports</a><br>
<br>
It has good links to OSM-compatible open data from York Region.<br>
<br>
My main problem with the plan — apart from likely wilful data
overwriting — is that they'd clip data to districts. Like we need <i>more</i>
arbitrary boundaries to fix in Canada …<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGwUD5us6QSLP6=Lmyybf5bF2p1uKgD8B-6gC1jhxz3G_jn+pQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>- parcels. Parcel data is contentious and problematic in
OpenStreetMap. See <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel"
target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Also, the commercial provincial parcels manager gets really
possessive over anything cadastral, even if they didn't collect it
or own it. They have money and lawyers. (Which I sometimes wish
they'd direct back to addressing the quality of the data they sell
…)<br>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGwUD5us6QSLP6=Lmyybf5bF2p1uKgD8B-6gC1jhxz3G_jn+pQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Do you have newer and or higher resolution aerial
imagery? <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Most municipalities/regions pay into group orthophoto collection,
like SWOOP in SW Ontario. It's updated every six years or so. It's
supplied to members at cost recovery, but the licensing is
restrictive. I did ask the relevant folks back in 2013 or so if
they'd release the obsolete 2006 data if I found hosting (as it was
better/newer than most of the Bing/Yahoo imagery at the time), but I
got a no.<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
Stewart<br>
</body>
</html>