[OSM-talk] Lake Cowichan Now loaded (more of sample 092c area)

Alan Millar am12 at bolis.com
Thu Jun 18 00:45:54 BST 2009


>> It should be sufficient to keep the canvec:UUID, source and attribution
>> tags, and maybe a few of the other canvec:* (CMAS?). I don't see why we
>> would need most of the others. If someone is really interested in them,
>> they
>> can look them up in Canvec using the UUID.

Right.  And anyone interested in the AND details can look them up
somewhere else.  And anyone interested in the TIGER details can look them
up somewhere else.  And anyone interested in the USGS Geonames details can
look them up somewhere else.  And so on, and so on, and so on for each
import, of which the number and scope continue to grow.

If we can save people time and effort by having the values all in OSM, I
think we should do it.

> There's a 1:1 correspondence between the value of amenity= and the
> value of canvec:value_definition= so one of them should be removed.
> There's a 1:1 correspondence between the value of canvec:entity= and
> the value of canvec:entity_definition= so one of them should be
> removed.

I have not looked at the CanVec data, but if there is a 1:1 correspondence
there, you're lucky. I have looked at the USGS Geonames and TIGER data,
and there is NOT a 1:1 map with accepted OSM tags.  Sure, you could (for
example) force something to be amenity=hotel, even if the accepted tag is
tourism=hotel, but that's a cheap hack, not consistent data.

For some future mappers, gnis:county_id=052 will be useful, and for many
more other future mappers, gnis:county_name=Multnomah will be useful.  Is
it redundant?  Sure.  Will it make life easier for other OSM mappers?  I
bet it will.

Keep the extra data in there.

- Alan






More information about the talk mailing list