[Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?

Paul Norman penorman at mac.com
Tue Apr 17 09:59:54 BST 2012


> From: Ian Bruseker [mailto:ian.bruseker at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:31 PM
> To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
> 
> On 2012-04-15, at 6:37 PM, Steve Singer <steve at ssinger.info> wrote:
> 
> > I also feel that not of all data sources are equal.  Even within
> > Canvec some layers are excellent (ie roads and lakes in most of the
> > country) while others are often so out of date it isn't worth the time
> > to import (ie buildings in much of Southern Ontario)
> >
> That's the third mention in a row of bad building data in Canvec. I'll
> chime in on that to say I found a hospital in St. Albert, Alberta that
> was marked as having come from an import. The hospital hasn't been there
> for 20 years. The new building is several kilometers away. Not just bad,
> full on dangerous if someone actually believed the data in OSM and tried
> to find help when they were hurt. :-(

I thought it was just BC but it sounds like it's everywhere.

Would I be correct in summarizing the opinions so far as
1. The buildings data from CanVec should not be imported unless it can be
verified against imagery, in which case you might as well trace the
buildings from imagery.

2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be
imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where
possible against imagery.




More information about the Talk-ca mailing list