[Talk-ca] Converted Stats Can Boundaries files.

[Sam Vekemans]

Yup :)

And what's fun about OSM is that OSM rules can always change, based on
more available information. and 'discussing details'
So the score so far is 2/2 tied.  With those who dont mind dropping it
in all at once :)

The best way to handle this is probably to update the StatsCan wiki
page, with all of the facts that are known.  Then the best solution
can be made :)

Cheers,
Sam

/me is adding updating the wiki page to the list.

P.S. If anyone needs to know, BC Ferries has free wi-fi internet on board :)

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Bégin, Daniel
<Daniel.Begin at rncan-nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
> Sorry Sam,
>
> I don't want to argue with anybody.
>
> I wrote ...
>> I agree with Richard,
> ... because Richard's comments were based on commonly agreed Osm rules.
>
> The rest of the email was just information, no arguments.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samvekemans at gmail.com [mailto:samvekemans at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Vekemans
> Sent: 27 juillet 2010 12:34
> To: Bégin, Daniel; Talk-CA OpenStreetMap; Tyler Gunn; Michel Gilbert
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Converted Stats Can Boundaries files.
>
> hi,
> i'll counter that argument with this.
>
>
> Tyler converted each province as separate .osm files.
>
> michel gilbert did a great job at converting the province boundaries and importing.
> note: it was only 1 person who imported all provincial boundaries.
>
>
>
> its commonly agreed that boundaries, and the enire 'boundary web'
> should actually consist of only 1 strand for each boundary line.
> think of it like a spiders web.
> if you were to paint inside each 'whole' you actually go over each strand 2 or more times in the process.
>
>
> unlike the whysical world, where thereis a boundary line, its clear that on 1 side is the municapality of 1 area and the other is of the next town/area.
> there needs not to be a 'nutral zone'.
>
>
> however, those rules are not set in stone, all boundaries dont need to be a relation, i prefer that the lowest boundary level (local
> community) gets mapped as polygons, then the next level up gets mapped as relations, so it just uses the same 'strand' Complexity
>
>
> which is better?
>
> On 7/27/10, Bégin, Daniel <Daniel.Begin at rncan-nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
>> I agree with Richard,
>>
>> Here is more information...
>>
>> The first Osm Canadian/Provinces/Territories boundaries were imported
>> from GeoBase in 2008 - actually the original contributor just confirmed me.
>> These imported GeoBase boundaries were, and still being used, for
>> GeoBase products definition - NRN, NHN, ...
>>
>> I understand that one of the primary objective for StatCan, creating
>> similar boundaries, is to make census field work easier - not
>> necessarily geometrically accurate!  So, their boundaries might be
>> different from GeoBase boundaries - and Osm - because it serves another purpose.
>>
>> The same applies to many georeferenced StatCan products, like Road
>> Network ...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: talk-ca-bounces at openstreetmap.org
>> [mailto:talk-ca-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Weait
>> Sent: 23 juillet 2010 12:37
>> To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Converted Stats Can Boundaries files.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Sam Vekemans
>> <acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> hi talk-ca,
>>> because it is an entire complex web of relations, were 1 way has 2 or
>>> more relations attached to it, i'd recomment the solution on the
>>> wiki, if we want to preserve the rule that all bountaries need to be
>>> relations.
>>>
>>> then the 1st task is the look at the povince file, and remove the
>>> existing boundary data that will cause duplicate ways.
>>
>> I presume you mean "keep the existing data and don't use the duplicate
>> data from the file."
>>
>>> then once each province is all clear, then 1 person can upload it all
>>> at once.
>>
>> Come on now, you aren't really suggesting removing existing boundary
>> data just to add it back in, are you?  That doesn't sound very
>> considerate of the previous mappers.
>>
>> Have you looked at the relative technical merits of the existing
>> boundary data and the StatsCan data Tyler just converted?  Are they
>> from the same source, or is one of provably lower quality?
>>
>> How about starting with a smaller test than a complete province?
>> Would anyone care to take a look at their neigbourhood and the related
>> and adjacent boundaries?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
> --
> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
> Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/
> http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
> Skype: samvekemans
> IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) @Acrosscanadatrails
>