[Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

[john whelan]

I think my concern is that Canvec data has been imported over many years.
JOSM validation is now far more sophisticated than it was in 2008.  We
refined CANVEC over time, identifying problems with it back to the group
that created it.  Bing wasn't even available then.  My feeling is that part
of the CANVEC data such as forests has far too much detail for the value it
gives and over time the lakes and rivers tend to move.  Since it is is made
up of data from different sources and that data was collected on different
dates I think we have to expect some misalignment.

I do not have an understanding of what the German concerns are.  I do have
concerns that practically everywhere in Canada currently stands a chance of
having a lot of data being deleted including work that has been done to
clean it up.

Cheerio John

On 1 September 2016 at 18:47, Andrew Lester <a-lester at shaw.ca> wrote:

> If people from outside of Canada have decided that our data is so bad that
> it needs to be completely wiped out in its entirety, then I guess we're
> going to have to do something drastic to try to prevent this.
>
> @Michael, Frederik, Paul: would it be good enough for us to wipe out any
> and all CanVec forest data (or even ALL forest data because some could have
> been derived from CanVec)? This seems to be the biggest cause for concern.
> If not, what do you think we need to do to prevent all CanVec data from
> being wiped out? Wiping out all CanVec data would effectively clear out the
> majority of the Canadian map and really isn't an option in our minds. Do we
> need to get rid of all forest data and then go on a cooperative fixing
> blitz (maybe using MapRoulette or Tasking Manager) to fix every single JOSM
> validator error across the country? In short, if we're doing things so
> wrong, what can we do to make things right other than have a German revert
> all of our changesets so we can start from scratch?
>
> Andrew
> Victoria, BC, Canada
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Sam Dyck" <samueldyck at gmail.com>
> *To: *"Talk-CA OpenStreetMap" <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> *Sent: *Thursday, September 1, 2016 2:38:38 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
>
> After reading Paul's email again, its possible that what Nakaner is doing
> is in line with Paul's suggestion, if unnecessarily confrontational. I
> tried to play around in JOSM to see if I could get the forest polygons to a
> point where Nakaner would leave us alone by mercilessly deleting all of the
> inner ways in the forest multipolygons, but because of the way things are
> structured around rivers that would be several hours worth of work for one
> tile. Given this perhaps the only solution is to bulk delete all Canvec
> forest data. As someone who actually finds the forest data useful this
> would be extremely unfortunate, but if it allows us to continue imports
> without excessive external scrutiny then I am willing to except it.
> (apologies for the English only emails, my French writing skills are sadly
> lacking)
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Pierre Béland <pierzenh at yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> L'idéal préparer Une réponse standard indiquant que l'Import Canvec par
>> la communauté OSM Canada est itératif et nous nous assurons collectivement
>> d'améliorer les données. Voir page Wiki Import Canvec et venir discuter sur
>> Talk-Ca si vous avez d'autres questions.
>>
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *De :* Sam Dyck <samueldyck at gmail.com>
>> *À :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
>> *Envoyé le :* jeudi 1 Septembre 2016 17h06
>> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
>>
>> I received the following changeset comment from Nakaner for a Canvec
>> import (changeset
>> 38158126) at 15:55 Central Time (20:55 UTC):
>> "This changeset has uploaded data which does not fit to each other. There
>> is an offset between the water areas and the forest areas. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/
>> way/406539219 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/406539219>
>> Could you please fix this?"
>> I believe the given what we have just spent the last 24 hours discussing
>> this request is unreasonable and the issue is not significant. Thoughts?
>> Sam
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160901/e04a0b30/attachment-0001.html>