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

Tyler Gunn tyler at egunn.com
Sun Dec 4 16:54:15 GMT 2011


On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:56 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I didn't manually transcribe road names from CanVec, I copy/pasted them.
Good call on the connectedness; it was sloppy for me to upload before
verifying that.

My reason for not just using Canvec was 2-fold:
1. CanVec (at least in MB) is missing all one-way tags on roads,
meaning there is some cleanup anyways.
2. It was easier to just re-draw the roads rather than trying to
adjust the CanVec roads.

> 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.

I'm quite familiar with these areas; further the MLI Imagery is from
2009; CanVec is missing many of the roads I got from the MLI imagery.

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

Fair enough; I should probably put a year for the MLI imagery on these
roads, since that is something versioned.

I dunno, I could have just went with Canvec entirely, but I figured
the point of OSM wasn't to just import Canvec, but instead to try and
create a unique fusion of data from a number of sources.  I've used
Canvec in its entitrety in the past where no other better sources of
information were available.  In this particular area I felt it best to
use a fusion of data sources.

Tyler



More information about the Talk-ca mailing list