[Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands

[Bégin, Daniel]

Bonjour All,

Paul propose not to include aboriginal lands in the next Canvec.osm release. 

I would like to have more feedback from the community before excluding it :-)
Regards,

Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com] 
Sent: February 13, 2012 18:55
To: Bégin, Daniel
Cc: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands

Then I don't think they should be included in canvec.osm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Begin at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca]
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:04 AM
> To: Paul Norman
> Cc: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
> 
> Bonjour again Paul,
> 
> An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area 
> split like large lake.  That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product 
> for the moment :-(
> 
> Daniel
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com]
> Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35
> To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
> 
> Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large 
> lakes are?
> If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without 
> significant work.
> 
> Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing?
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Begin at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM
> > To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
> >
> > Bonjour Tyler,
> >
> > Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on 
> > GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country.
> >
> > The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The 
> > Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will 
> > complied to the 50K map sheet coverage.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Daniel
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:tyler at egunn.com]
> > Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38
> > To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
> >
> > > It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of 
> > > Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the 
> > > community concerning the tags/values to use?
> > > I've found some links to...
> > > - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land
> > > - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4
> > > - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24
> >
> > I'm curious how this information would be represented given the
> > distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format?   Given that
> > administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if 
> > it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries.  Were you 
> > thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts?
> >
> > How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from 
> > where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is
> split up?
> >
> > When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, 
> > cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the 
> > boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy.
> > We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national 
> > parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way.
> >
> > So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as:
> > boundary=aboriginal_land
> >
> > Tyler
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-ca mailing list
> > Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-ca mailing list
> > Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca