[Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 109, Issue 13

Tue Mar 7 19:04:01 UTC 2017

Kevin and Denis, and others, 

Thank you all for the amazing answers to my question. 

It all makes sense. Later we could talk about writing up an approach to get there iteratively, I think we all agree it is needed at some point.

Bjenk

-----Original Message-----
From: talk-ca-request at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-ca-request at openstreetmap.org] 
Sent: March-07-17 1:52 PM
To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 109, Issue 13

Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
	talk-ca at openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	talk-ca-request at openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	talk-ca-owner at openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Municipal boundaries (kevinfarrugia)
   2. Re: Municipal boundaries (Denis Carriere)
   3. Re: Municipal boundaries (Adam Martin)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 13:38:00 -0500
From: kevinfarrugia <kevinfarrugia at gmail.com>
To: "J.P. Kirby" <webmaster at the506.com>, James <james2432 at gmail.com>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
Message-ID: <vdtwscp5e6030w9hxadr2rqj.1488911880439 at email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally (at least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries. 
In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and how boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are definitely important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need for extremely redundant addr tags that are used for cities.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: "J.P. Kirby" <webmaster at the506.com> Date: 2017-03-07  1:21 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: James <james2432 at gmail.com> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries 
And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for instance they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at all and are just StatsCan creations.
I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added into OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.

Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James <james2432 at gmail.com> wrote:

CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in reality

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scruss at gmail.com> wrote:
On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:

>

> … Any more thoughts?

If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather

than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they

don't belong in OSM.

 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:

   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have

    invented.

   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without

    permission.

   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for

    themselves if your data is correct.

   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to

    others how to re-use the data

  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world

  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”

 — How We Map <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map>

Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.

 Stewart
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20170307/68f24873/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 13:50:03 -0500
From: Denis Carriere <carriere.denis at gmail.com>
To: kevinfarrugia <kevinfarrugia at gmail.com>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
Message-ID:
	<CAM4+Tg2LftfU9qS_M7i0kruq8rWrD_t4q_2S_mkC69XFScLAtg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

+1 Kevin again :)

Boundaries are a MUST if ever you want better geocoding.

We just need to deconflict the boundaries that are different from StatsCan
& the local municipalities (these boundaries should be "authoritative" if
they exist).

Remember, not all townships have a full GIS team working for them, there's
going to be many areas in Canada that StatsCan does have the "best" data.

*~~~~~~*
*Denis Carriere*
*GIS Software & Systems Specialist*

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM, kevinfarrugia <kevinfarrugia at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally
> (at least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries.
>
> In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and
> how boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are
> definitely important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need
> for extremely redundant addr tags that are used for cities.
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "J.P. Kirby" <webmaster at the506.com>
> Date: 2017-03-07 1:21 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: James <james2432 at gmail.com>
> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>
> And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for
> instance they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at
> all and are just StatsCan creations.
>
> I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added
> into OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James <james2432 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually
> there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but
> they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in
> reality
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scruss at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
>> >
>> > … Any more thoughts?
>>
>> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
>> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
>> don't belong in OSM.
>>
>>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>>    1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
>>     invented.
>>    2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
>>     permission.
>>    3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
>>     themselves if your data is correct.
>>    4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
>>     others how to re-use the data
>>
>>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>>
>>  — How We Map <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map>
>>
>> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>>
>>  Stewart
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170307/467df2ac/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:21:18 -0330
From: Adam Martin <s.adam.martin at gmail.com>
To: kevinfarrugia <kevinfarrugia at gmail.com>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
Message-ID:
	<CADqb88t_daiCNEusrux2TfTbj0Faw6dBRtRB83sMVOdYYgXBwA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

When in doubt, consult the local legislation if possible. Most of the towns
in my province are afforded land via an Act under the law. It sets out
boundaries which are determined either through coordinates or by describing
the line with reference to local landscape features.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:08 PM, kevinfarrugia <kevinfarrugia at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally
> (at least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries.
>
> In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and
> how boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are
> definitely important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need
> for extremely redundant addr tags that are used for cities.
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "J.P. Kirby" <webmaster at the506.com>
> Date: 2017-03-07 1:21 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: James <james2432 at gmail.com>
> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>
> And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for
> instance they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at
> all and are just StatsCan creations.
>
> I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added
> into OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James <james2432 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually
> there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but
> they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in
> reality
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scruss at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
>> >
>> > … Any more thoughts?
>>
>> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
>> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
>> don't belong in OSM.
>>
>>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>>    1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
>>     invented.
>>    2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
>>     permission.
>>    3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
>>     themselves if your data is correct.
>>    4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
>>     others how to re-use the data
>>
>>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>>
>>  — How We Map <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map>
>>
>> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>>
>>  Stewart
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170307/70ec4026/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

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

------------------------------

End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 109, Issue 13
****************************************