[Talk-ca] Re-licensing -- a good excuse to rework some data.

[john whelan]

Personal view - why not just import the Canvec data?

If you use keeprite to have a qeikc look at the area
http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=11&lat=45.41013&lon=-75.64619&layers=B00T&ch=0%2C30%2C40%2C50%2C60%2C70%2C90%2C100%2C110%2C120%2C130%2C150%2C160%2C170%2C180%2C191%2C192%2C193%2C194%2C195%2C196%2C197%2C198%2C201%2C202%2C203%2C204%2C205%2C206%2C207%2C208%2C210%2C220%2C231%2C232%2C270%2C281%2C282%2C283%2C284%2C291%2C292%2C293%2C311%2C312%2C350&show_ign=1&show_tmpign=1

it appears that some roads aren't connected.  Visually it prints and shows
on the web fine but the routing programs can't use it.  Also manually
transcribing road names from CANVEC may introduce errors that are difficult
to detect except by labour intensive manual inspection.  The CANVEC data
has been verified already.

The other concern is when you are working with Bing or any aerial
photograph when was the image taken?  When someone comes to update the map
a CANVEC import gives some indication of version ie 6.0 etc so its a little
easier to see the changes when a new import is available.

This is a purely personal view but ask yourself why CANVEC uses tags such
as source CANVEC 6.0.

Cheerio John

On 1 December 2011 21:56, Tyler Gunn <tyler at egunn.com> wrote:

> I've noticed many people are worried about the pending purge of data
> from users who has not agreed to the new terms.
>
> There was a large are in Winnipeg contributed by the user VReimer, who
> has yet to agree to the new license.  Further, there has been question
> in the past where this user obtained the data, and whether it was
> legit or not.
>
> So, as an example of what we can accomplish with a bit of effort, I
> decided to replace the entire area bounded by St. Mary's Road to the
> West, St. Anne's Road to the East, Bishop Grandin to the North, and
> the Perimeter Highway to the South.
>
> I'm quite pleased with the results; the road network is smooth and
> clean, even at high zoom levels, and best of all it's all legit:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.82032&lon=-97.096&zoom=15&layers=M
>
> I used a combination of:
> - Bing imagery, which for the top half of the area was available in
> VERY high resolution.  Knowing that Bing is not always aligned well, I
> used a combination of city of winnipeg Cadastral polygons (available
> from Manitoba Lands Initiative), and the City of Winnipeg 50cm aerial
> imagery, which is VERY well aligned to the cadastral data, to re-align
> the Bing imagery.
> - in the bottom half of the area, only the MLI aerial imagery was
> available.  Not as high resolution as Bing, but certainly decent.
> - land use areas were derived by overlaying aerial imagery with the
> cadastral polygons (showing individual lots and land parcels) , and
> then combining them in Quantum GIS into the larger landuse blobs.
> - the road network is 100% hand-drawn from re-aligned aerial imagery
> - road attributes and surfaces are derived from my knowledge of the
> area and the imagery.
> - road names are copied from CanVec tiles.
>
> Let me know what you all think.
>
> Tyler
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20111202/f185cb3a/attachment-0001.html>