[Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands

Bégin, Daniel Daniel.Begin at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca
Tue Feb 14 20:29:25 GMT 2012


Paul, I understand that the aboriginal lands (if included), and administrative boundary, should be presented as ways, not multipolygons. 

It is on my duty list!
Daniel


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com] 
Sent: February 14, 2012 15:24
To: 'Connors, Bernie (SNB)'; Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands

I'm not so concerned with the aboriginal lands as with municipal boundaries.
Aboriginal lands are unlikely to span multiple sub-tiles unless they lie on an edge, but cities often cover several sub-tiles. 

Is converting the boundaries from polygons to linestrings an option?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:Bernie.Connors at snb.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:56 AM
> To: 'Bégin, Daniel'; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
> 
> If the Aboriginal lands are easily available from another source
> (GeoBase) and including them in Canvec.osm is going to make the data 
> more complex I think the aboriginal lands should be excluded from 
> Canvec.osm.
> 
> --
> Bernie Connors, P.Eng
> Service New Brunswick
> (506) 444-2077
> 45°56'25.21"N, 66°38'53.65"W
> www.snb.ca/geonb/
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Begin at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2012-02-14 09:05
> To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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




More information about the Talk-ca mailing list