[Talk-ca] Canvec/Geobase point feature - Render

Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 01:34:51 GMT 2009


Cool, i put the 'building=yes' back in service for both the 'unknown'
and 'other' feature point types.

Good thing too; as i had a challenge trying to get the 'exclusion
script' to work.

And yup, i'll subscribe to that talk list (i'll try to keep quiet on
that one) :-)

cheers,
Sam

On 3/23/09, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 20:05 -0400, Michel Gilbert wrote:
>> 2009/3/23 Sam Vekemans <acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com>
>>
>>         I have not yet received the answer from NRCan about if the
>>         location of the node is EXACTLY where the building actually
>>         is, or is it just shown in the general area.  If it is the
>>         former, then this information can be taken into account.
>
> Sam, why should the building point location be EXACT?  We know that all
> data, regardless of source, will have a degree of precision depending on
> many things.  Buildings are worth having, in my opinion, even if only as
> a point.
>
>> The position of buildings may be "exact" if the acquisition methods
>> was from stereo-digitization. If it came from map scanning they may
>> have been displaced for map representation purposes. My guess is 80%
>> of the buildings in CanVec come from map scanning.
>
>>         What i can do, and i presume that you all would agree, is to
>>         add this feature to the "not4osm" folder so then it could be
>>         used as an assistant for the person who is actually uploading
>>         the information.
>
> I disagree.  Worth including in my opinion.  Default renders may chose
> to render them or not.  Some future render may do "cool things" based on
> the number of buildings / area.  Who can predict future creativity?  The
> buildings exist, or existed at the time of survey.  Worth knowing.
>
>> Following the new information I received from
>> tilesathome at openstreetmap.org (i have just forwarded the email to
>> talk-ca) we may still want them for mapping purposes.
>
>>
>> We can list them, then check with the tilesathome at openstreetmap.org
>> talk if they are part of the render feature.
>
> And even if the default renderers don't want point buildings, perhaps
> the renderer at openstreetmap.ca will.  Or YourCompany.com might make a
> fortune offering point-building renderers.
>
>>         For example, when the feature lists 9 or so different feature
>>         types, the general practice for both GeoBase & CanVec is to
>>         state "-1" unknown  and "0" none ... i would suggest that
>>         these features be omitted from the import also.
>>
>>         Any thoughts on that?
>
> Sam, I'm sure I don't know to what you refer here.  Could you clarify
> please?
>
>> Again it depends if the tilesathome at openstreetmap.org talk confirm
>> that no render is possible. If we really want them display we can ask
>> them ?
>
> Even if the default mapnik, T at H and others don't render point-buildings
> we can adjust them for our own purposes.  (We can also ask the
> maintainers to add support for point buildings.)
>
> Best regards,
> Richard
>
>




More information about the Talk-ca mailing list