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

[Paul Norman]

> From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Begin at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca]
> Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
> 
> Steve, Paul,
> 
> I was on the impression that the consensus was more about using Canvec
> where it is the best available source and, when it is not, the data
> could be imported, but only after an exhaustive verification using
> available data/imagery.
> 
> Whatever is the consensus, it should be documented in the wiki.
> 
> Furthermore, I think that "internal consistency/accuracy/existence"
> should be defined...
> 
> consistency: ?

CanVec sometimes contradicts itself, for example it has trees in the water
frequently. The coastline example I sent to you earlier would also be
another example of where the data doesn't make sense. There are a few others
that I've encountered. Typically what happens is one data source is
significantly older than the other so CanVec says the land is being used for
two contradictory uses at the same time.