[Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

Alan Richards alarobric at gmail.com
Thu Sep 1 23:54:20 UTC 2016


I agree with Frederik here. New imports need to make sure they follow the
import guidelines, including using a dedicated import account.

The wiki information could all be cleaned up, consolidated, and then new
users would know the current status and process for importing new
information.

For cleaning up the existing information, I like the idea of getting some
MapRoulette tasks going, or maybe writing some new validations in osmlint,
osmose, etc.
Certainly in the BC and Ontario data I've seen, it's not just the forest
that is problematic, but also the water layer. Creeks occasionally flow the
wrong way (a bad very old import I suspect), lakes and wetlands are
mixed/overlaid.

Alan (alarobric)

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:30 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:

> >I think a super good first step would be try and ensure that future
> imports are done diligently and don't introduce new issues.
>
> I think that is a reasonable way forward, and I concur with the rest of
> your post.
>
> I think we need to identify which parts of CANVEC are giving concern, each
> province is a different mixture of data sources, I suspect it is the forest
> and land use that are the most problematic.
>
> The older tiles had a problem in that a highway would reach the edge of
> the tile and there would be a matching highway on the next tile but there
> was no connection.  I spent many a happy hour, too many of them, merging
> nodes so routing would work.  I think the cities have been cleaned up but
> more rural areas still have the odd one or two to do.
>
> Probably what would make a lot of sense as a next step is to grab the
> provincial OSM dumps, chop them up into manageable portions then load them
> up into JOSM and run a modern validation on them.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 1 September 2016 at 19:13, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> On 09/02/2016 12:47 AM, Andrew Lester 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.
>>
>> I think a super good first step would be try and ensure that future
>> imports are done diligently and don't introduce new issues. (This might
>> be the "better documentation" step that Paul mentioned.) It really
>> shouldn't be too hard to detect whether your planned import causes
>> overlapping lakes and forests, but there needs to be an agreement that
>> these things matter and that you cannot simply upload "because if CanVec
>> says that forest and water overlap then this must be true".
>>
>> Then one could take stock of existing issues and make a plan on how to
>> fix them.
>>
>> Whether fixing existing issues will necessitate the wholesale removal of
>> some imports is something that should be decided down the line; I know
>> too little about CanVec imports to say whether some problems are
>> systemic in the data source, or certain regions, or just introduced by
>> clumsy importers. Any large-scale removal of imported data (perhaps to
>> replace it with new, better-imported data) would also have to take into
>> account potential manual work that has been performed on the imported by
>> mappers with local knowledge and it would be sad to lose that.
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/ae4ed7d4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-ca mailing list