[Talk-ca] which tags in canvec? was: canvec2osm update (an easy question this time)

Fri Jun 26 00:34:43 BST 2009

Great!
These 4 tags seem to be the prefered choice by everyone. :)

canvec:UUID=12364j4o*
attribution=Natural Resources Canada
source=CanVec_Import_2009
created_by=canvec2osm

I'll like to also recommend keeping a 5th tag 'canvec:CODE', this will
give users the method of sourcing the data within the wiki, as well as
on the source PDF.
As its useful and has significant value. IMO -to get all the other
tags, when relevant for their own projects.
It would enable a method for searching within osm for all the same
taged features, without 'bogging' down the OSM database.

Let me know,
Cheers,
Sam Vekemans
Across Canada Trails

On 6/25/09, James Ewen <jewen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> I'll second, third, and fourth that motion if I can... There's far too
> much useless and redundant data contained in the tags. The information
> that is available in Canvec is of value to the project, but if you're
> going to put hundreds of thousands of redundant tags into the
> database, you're going to make it difficult for people to make use of
> the data available, simply because of bloat.
>
> If you feel the need to recreate this data somewhere other than in the
> source PDFs, go ahead and make a wiki page. If it makes you happy,
> create a seperate wiki page for each node and way that you would be
> importing, listing all the pertinent information for each entity. That
> should keep you busy for a couple decades. If you can see the folly in
> creating thousands of wiki pages containing nearly identical
> information, then you should understand why it would be foolish to
> include such information attached to each entry in the OSM database.
>
> James
> VE6SRV
>
>
> On 6/25/09, Sam Vekemans <acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Richard :)
>> do we have a 2ndr for that motion?
>>
>> Happy to hear u were able to run the script. As you say, it didnt work
>> right. The next version will be packaged to include all the different
>> rules.txt files needed. (perhaps it should be called pre-beta) im
>> surprised it actually worked :-) Sorry for your wasted time running
>> the BETA script. (but its appreciated)
>>
>> Maybe others can comment or +1, on ideas u noted?
>>
>> I think we all agree that before importing all of Canada, we want to
>> be as close to 100% certain as possable. Although its possable to
>> revert and mass-change, getting it 'best' we can 1st time through is
>> 'best'.
>>
>> Great ideas, thanks for all the imput and great detail.
>>
>> Do we prefer if the extra details get made into wiki pages for each
>> feature? Rather than leave users to check the .pdf.
>> Id prefer the wiki because the charts are sortable and more easy to
>> read than the pdf. -im asking now, in hopes to save me work. (it took
>> a week to add in all the canvec details to the script & chart) which
>> is 100% accurate. And yes, the CanVec pdf has spelling errors (and
>> redundency & inconsistancy that  could be fixed).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sam
>>
>>
>> On 6/25/09, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 22:56 -0700, Sam Vekemans wrote:
>>>
>>> [ ... a lot of stuff ... ]
>>>
>>>> Anyway, i uploaded a couple sample features to Port Renfrew, BC
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/163132
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What tags should be removed??... but more importantly, WHY..
>>>
>>> Hi Sam (and list),
>>>
>>> Others have suggested that you are including too much from canvec in the
>>> import.  I agree.  Much of what you are importing can be dropped without
>>> hurting OSM.
>>>
>>> These should stay.
>>>
>>> created_by = canvec2osm
>>> landuse = residential
>>> source = CanVec_Import_2009
>>> attribution = Natural Resources Canada
>>> canvec:UUID = 11CF43A8C213E5F4E0409C8467120387
>>>
>>> Sam, you say on the canvec2osm page[1] that v0.74 is the latest
>>> canvec2osm zip file.  Some older versions are found at your site[2] but
>>> not v0.74 or several others.  It also looks like you have started
>>> uploading sample area .osm files with similar names to the script.zip
>>> files.  Confusing!
>>>
>>> I think most of what you are putting into the sample[3] should be
>>> removed and can be safely removed.  Here's what I've done:
>>>
>>> I've run the canvec2osm V0.22 script for a large portion of southern
>>> Ontario.  This created over 1,300 files.
>>>
>>> Then I looked for unique data in each of the tags.  For example I found
>>> that in over 1300 files "canvec:PROVIDER" had only five values and two
>>> were duplicates.
>>>
>>> canvec:PROVIDER = Federal
>>> canvec:PROVIDER = federal
>>> canvec:PROVIDER = municipal
>>> canvec:PROVIDER = Provincial/territorial
>>> canvec:PROVIDER = provincial_territorial
>>>
>>> This adds almost zero value to OpenStreetMap and it would be damaging to
>>> OSM to include this data in every item imported from CanVec.  I can't
>>> imagine that a large number of OSM users would care if data came from
>>> the town, province or federal government for each node and way.
>>>
>>> These should stay.  They are appropriate and useful to OSM users and
>>> tools.
>>>
>>> created_by = canvec2osm
>>> landuse = residential
>>> source = CanVec_Import_2009
>>> attribution = Natural Resources Canada
>>> type = multipolygon
>>>
>>> These should be removed.  The tags above tell those interested that the
>>> data came from CanVec.  If they need to know more, they can find their
>>> way through the wiki and svn.  Lots of duplication here.
>>>
>>> canvec:CODE = 1370012
>>> canvec:datasetName = 092C09
>>> canvec:generic_code = 1370009
>>> canvec:min_size:CODE = 1370009
>>> canvec:source = CanVec_Feature_Catalogue_Edition_1_0_2.pdf
>>> canvec:entity = Residential area - ( Zone résidentielle )
>>> canvec:value = Residential area - ( Zone résidentielle )
>>> canvec:Theme = BS Buildings and structures
>>>
>>> No canvec:source, just "no".  This tag appears over 385,000 times in my
>>> sample area.  The value is always
>>> "CanVec_Feature_Catalogue_Edition_1_0_2.pdf"  No way.  Put it in the
>>> wiki.  The only folks likely to care are the ones who are working on the
>>> import.
>>>
>>> Next was
>>> canvec:Planimetric Accuracy (CMAS)
>>>
>>> First, "canvec:Planimetric Accuracy (CMAS)" as a key is broken.  Keys
>>> must not include spaces.  Second, I think it should be dropped from the
>>> import even if the key is fixed.
>>>
>>> In over 1300 files the only values for this key were:
>>>
>>> -1,0,3,5,10,21 and 30.
>>>
>>> Not much to choose here.  And not much to learn from adding this tag to
>>> every node and way.  I say drop it entirely OR use k=canvec:accuracy,
>>> v=value and only include it for the worst of the data, like values >=21
>>> meters.  That would add value for OSM users by making it obvious that an
>>> item could possibly be improved by a consumer-grade GPS with a good fix.
>>> >From my sample only 45 objects out of ~400,000 have these poor accuracy
>>> values.
>>>
>>> Or, alternately, drop any data with accuracy >=21 meters and don;t
>>> include it in OSM.
>>>
>>> canvec:VALDATE is similar.  Best would be only to include valdate when
>>> valdate is older than ten years, as something that an OSM mapper could
>>> reasonably bring up-to-date.  Or just don't import anything older than
>>> ten years old.  But I say drop VALDATE entirely, but I'm willing to be
>>> convinced otherwise.
>>>
>>> And what is this stuff?  Details on how they classified the data when
>>> they collected it?  And did CanVec really misspell "tolerance" twice?
>>> This is not adding value in the OSM database.  Leave it in the wiki or
>>> let people track it down in the canvec documents if it is important to
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Drop all of these:
>>> canvec:min_size:area_sq_meter = 1000
>>> canvec:min_size:lat_distance_meter = 1.5
>>> canvec:min_size:length_meter = ---
>>> canvec:min_size:long_distance_meter = 3
>>> canvec:min_size:right_angle_tollerance_degree = ---
>>> canvec:min_size:spike_angle_tollerance_degree = 10
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canvec2osm
>>> [2] http://www.acrosscanadatrails.com/Home/
>>> [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/163132
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>

-- 
Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans