[Talk-ca] Internal CanVec conflicts

[Bryan Crosby]

I believe you have brought up this same issue in the past.  You have with
me, at least...and I'm getting tired of it.  

"Is it the communities view that it is okay to import CanVec without
reconciling the internal differences between the layers?"

I believe it is.  The great thing about OSM data is it is not written in
stone.  An import or edit can be changed in the future.  The data is
inserted for use by anyone.  Just because I upload the CANVEC does not mean
it is required to stay there as is.    I don't believe an import has to be
perfect, especially in massively expansive areas natural areas which remain
in a constant state of flux.   This cannot be accurately determined via Bing
or ANY source we have.  Rivers change course each year, often several times.
They flood timber, often for short periods of time. Which raises another
question...how do we determine what timber is?  Is it trees?  Brush?  Mixed
wood?  A forester would say all of the above.  Muskeg?  Swamp? Bog?  Anyone
here qualified to make that decision?   That island in your example?  It has
brush on it.  But it might not in the spring.  The whole island might not be
there in the spring.  But it's there right now.  

My work on OSM is almost exclusively isolated areas which have little, if
any existing data. My imports also cover an incredibly expansive area,
unpopulated area.  Professionally, I'm involved with the provincial
government and have flown, drove, hiked and biked these areas more than
anyone on this OSM project, and it probably wouldn't even add up to a
fraction of what is there.  We struggle with good data.  We don't check our
data to the detail that Paul Norman is advocating.   We recognize that such
areas are HUGE and having a reasonably good idea of what is there is a far
better methodology than chasing details that change before you even get them
onto a map. 

To be fully candid, many of my first imports were not done well.  I've made
a good attempt at going back and repairing my mistakes.  I've learned much
since those early imports, and I suspect that is the same route for many
users. 

This will be my first and only response to this.  If the Canadian OSM
community feels we need to check every stream, island, oxbow lake, piece of
'forest', esker, soil type, muskeg, swamp for accuracy, so be it.  Keep in
mind that in doing so, 80% of the country will receive no data, and the
community will be down one mapper.

B

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com] 
Sent: November-10-12 4:38 AM
To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] Internal CanVec conflicts

CanVec data comes from multiple sources and this can lead to internal
inconsistencies. A common case is a new development where there used to be
trees. The tree data in CanVec might be older and show an area as forested
while there is newer road data indicating that the area has been developed.
An example of this type is
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.695&lon=-73.905&zoom=17 although I have
seen many other cases of it.

Another common case is the trees in water problem frequently found in BC. A
typical example is
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=58.648&lon=-123.911&zoom=17 where there is
a conflict between the water data and the forest data. You need to view the
data as it doesn't show up on the rendering.

Is it the communities view that it is okay to import CanVec without
reconciling the internal differences between the layers?

My view is that importing data without resolving conflicts of this type
where it conflicts with either existing data or internally is not an
acceptable import and indicates the importer did not sufficiently review
what they were uploading.


_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5885 - Release Date: 11/09/12