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

[Bégin, Daniel]

Haaa! It makes sense... 

Originally, hydrography and vegetation were fitting together. Now that we are gradually replacing the older hydrography with newer data from provinces, we find vegetation in water. It will be corrected when we will replace the vegetation with a new one extracted from satellite images 5 years ago. 

The same thing can happen between hydrography and road network.
Thank for the clarification

Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com] 
Sent: April 25, 2012 16:13
To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Steve Singer'
Cc: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?

> 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.