[Talk-ca] Question on CANVEC

[Adam Martin]

I agree, Harald. There are lots of things that the CANVEC adds that's
perfectly fine, if somewhat off position. Easier to edit those into
position than to try to create them whole-cloth.


On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Harald Kliems <kliems at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to clarify, I was only talking specifically about the landuse data.
> Much of Canvec is great!
>
> Harald.
> On Jul 22, 2014 10:21 AM, "Andrew" <andrew.allison at teksavvy.com> wrote:
>
>>         I agree, that the large polygons, are a pain. I would second the
>> idea
>> of deleting and recreating the wooded areas from imagery. I don't think
>> I would go so far to say all of the canvec imported data is bad. i.e.
>> Lakes, rivers, roads, address data, train tracks, etc.
>>
>>         I must from the camp where the goal is to "improve the quality of
>> the
>> map even if it is from an incremental point. (i.e. no data to some data)
>> or I guess (no data to PIA data? :-)
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>> aka CanvecImports.
>> aka I guess, one of the "offenders" :-)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 09:25 -0500, Harald Kliems wrote:
>> > Just delete and recreate. There have been several discussions on this
>> > list about the data quality of the landuse data and if it should've
>> > been imported in the first place (no data vs. bad data). Working with
>> > gigantic multipolygons is indeed a pain and I don't think there is any
>> > value to preserving the import data.
>> >
>> >
>> > Just my two cents,
>> >  Harald.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Martin <s.adam.martin at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >         Hey all,
>> >
>> >
>> >         I have a quick question on data that has been imported from
>> >         CANVEC. I have been doing some work on the North-West side of
>> >         Thunder Bay in Ontario. Part of that has been attempting to
>> >         revamp the land use designations there. At the moment, the use
>> >         has been entered via CANVEC import, but a review comparing
>> >         that data to the actual land underneath from the Satellite
>> >         shows fairly large variances. As well, the "Wood" polygon
>> >         itself is oddly shaped, with squared lines denoting where it
>> >         two CANVEC products were imported side by side.
>> >
>> >
>> >         Large multi-polygon areas like these are impossible to edit in
>> >         ID and still difficult in JOSM. So my question is this - if I
>> >         am editing the area, what is the perception on deleting the
>> >         main "Wood" polygon altogether and re-creating it? My intent
>> >         would be to increase the accuracy of the map in the area based
>> >         on the satellite data provided by Bing and this would be
>> >         easier if the land use were cleared and re-built. I would
>> >         leave the features that CANVEC imported - only the land use
>> >         would be re-constructed in that case. The other components
>> >         would simply be moved and edited as needed.
>> >
>> >
>> >         Thanks,
>> >
>> >
>> >         Adam
>> >
>> >
>> >         _______________________________________________
>> >         Talk-ca mailing list
>> >         Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> >         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
>> > Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Talk-ca mailing list
>> > Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20140722/52e5a26c/attachment-0001.html>