[Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Paul Norman]

On 9/1/2016 1:22 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree. "Better than nothing" I guess is the principle, 
> but when what is there (not nothing) gets in the way of improving 
> other features, then it's not better than nothing. And what if what's 
> there is, from an information point of view, basically nothing?
>
> Like the forests polygons that basically do nothing to delineate where 
> forests actually are (or residential polygons with same issue?) "Go 
> map all forests" is not actionable. Hell, even "clean up all forests 
> in just the area you care about" isn't. There's too much. So instead, 
> I leave demonstrably wrong "forests" in place.

In your example there I would have no issues with deleting that 
"forest". Its boundaries do not agree with the boundaries of the real 
forest, and the only reason there happens to really be forest in most of 
it is because it's in a part of BC where that is true *everywhere*.

I've cleaned up bad CanVec data like that, and my first step would be to 
delete it and start from scratch, so it's not like you are causing any 
additional effort if someone decides to come along and map it properly.