Re: [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
Translation in english of the title : Municipalities and government of Québec (Canada) will adopt the CC BY 4.0 - Ref. : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2014-February/006069.html Dear Paul, I am sorry to contradict you, but please find attached copy of my conversation with Simon Poole and le...@osmfoundation.org against the CC 4.0 This conversation includes the response of Simon Poole. I also copy to the list of discussion legal-talk @ I reiterate. It is the responsibility of OSM Foundation to instruct his community of his CC 4.0 interpretation as it has done for the CC 2.0 and CC 3.0 And in my humble opinion, the tiles and the BD licenses should updates to CC 4.0 to reduce proliferation of license, etc. Regards, Note : See press releases http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/un-avantage-pour-les-citoyens-montreal-disposera-de-la-licence-ouverte-cc-4-une-premiere-au-canada-en-matieres-de-donnees-ouvertes/ http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/actualites/fiche_autres_actualites.aspx?id=13362 --- Dre Diane Mercier @MTL_DO | donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca @okfnca | ca.okfn.org @_FACiL | facil.qc.ca @carnetsDM | dianemercier.com http://about.me/dianemercier http://vizualize.me/oKvvtBkJXK?r=oKvvtBkJXK Webographie du libre : https://www.zotero.org/dmercier/items/order/dateModified/sort/desc « Pas de données ouvertes, sans logiciel libre ni formats ouverts » Le 2014-02-21 01:42, Paul Norman a écrit : No one has raised the issue on legal-talk@ since CC 4 was released. *From:*Pierre Béland [mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr] *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:43 AM *To:* diane.merc...@gmail.com; Talk-ca (OSM) *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec Merci Diane pour ces infos. Ce sont là de bonnes nouvelles pour la communauté OSM du Québec. Espérons que nous aurons rapidement des nouvelles de la part du comité légal de OSM là-dessus. ---BeginMessage--- Good morning Diane There are two aspects to compatibility of a licence with OSM. On the one hand it has to be compatible with our contributor terms which only provide for attribution on request and on the other hand has to be compatible with our current distribution licence. Essentially this rules out any licence with share alike provisions. We can however provide attribution in a limited fashion. In the past we have deemed CC by 2.0 and 3.0 sources as compatible with OSM if the rights owners have agreed with how we do attribution via our website. Outside of this we have no formal approval purpose for licences, which is no surprise given that we have no lawyers on our staff of zero :-). We would make a determination if and when such a need would arise, if OKFN or your organisation would like to initiate such a review we would naturally gladly take the results in to account. Kind regards Simon Poole Am 17.12.2013 20:18, schrieb Diane Mercier, Ph.D.: Hi, The city of Montreal is currently revising its open license so the OpenStreetMap community can reuse our open geospatial data in your databases and applications. The license model should be approved by the OKFN as well as by the OSM to allow greater reuse of our open data. We were getting ready to reuse the Government of Canada (version 2.0) license which is approved by OKFN and OSM. Have you approved - or are you currently approving - CC 4.0 international just as the OKFN is doing (see od-discuss list)? Note : The french version will be the official one because City of Montréal is a French city in Québec, Canada. An english version will be published at the same time ;-) Best Regards, Dre Diane Mercier Ph.D. Sciences de l'information Chargée de projet principale des données ouvertes Division Communications numériques et graphiques Direction des communications Service du capital humain et des communications Ville de Montréal 303, rue Notre-Dame Est, 1A, Montréal QC H2Y 3Y8 dmerc...@ville.montreal.qc.ca @MTL_DO | donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca 514 872-9702 | donneesouver...@ville.montreal.qc.ca Ambassadrice de l'Open Knowledge Foundation Network - Groupe local au Canada @okfnca | ca.okfn.org @carnetsDM | dianemercier.com « Pas de données ouvertes, sans logiciel libre ni formats ouverts » - Message original - Objet: Re: [Talk-ca] Les licences Creative Commons 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0 et CC-BY-SA-4.0) est-elle acceptée par OSM De: Guillaume Pratte guilla...@guillaumepratte.net Date:Mar 17 décembre 2013 13:05 À: Diane Mercier diane.merc...@gmail.com Bonjour Diane, Tu peux contacter (en anglais) l?équipe légale de la fondation OpenStreetMap à l?adresse suivante: le...@osmfoundation.org Cordialement, Guillaume Le 2013-12-17 à 12:23, Diane Mercier diane.merc...@gmail.com a écrit : Bonjour, Pourriez-vous m'indiquer si OSM accepte les données libérées sous
Re: [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
Municipalities and government of Québec will adopt the CC BY 4.0 Diane Le 2014-02-21 07:04, Simon Poole a écrit : This is I believe a simple misunderstanding: le...@osmfoundation.org is the internal list of the LWG legal-t...@openstreetmap.org is the legal discussion mailing list open to the general public. On the matter at hand: as I write in the quoted mail, we are quite open to taking the results of a review of CC by 4.0 wrt compatibility with our contributor terms and the ODbL 1.0 in to account. Note, as I wrote in my mail, it is likely not worth doing for CC by-SA 4.0 as it is clear that a share alike licence will not be CT compatible. Simon Am 21.02.2014 12:12, schrieb Diane Mercier: Translation in english of the title : Municipalities and government of Québec (Canada) will adopt the CC BY 4.0 - Ref. : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2014-February/006069.html Dear Paul, I am sorry to contradict you, but please find attached copy of my conversation with Simon Poole and le...@osmfoundation.org against the CC 4.0 This conversation includes the response of Simon Poole. I also copy to the list of discussion legal-talk @ I reiterate. It is the responsibility of OSM Foundation to instruct his community of his CC 4.0 interpretation as it has done for the CC 2.0 and CC 3.0 And in my humble opinion, the tiles and the BD licenses should updates to CC 4.0 to reduce proliferation of license, etc. Regards, Note : See press releases http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/un-avantage-pour-les-citoyens-montreal-disposera-de-la-licence-ouverte-cc-4-une-premiere-au-canada-en-matieres-de-donnees-ouvertes/ http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/actualites/fiche_autres_actualites.aspx?id=13362 --- Dre Diane Mercier @MTL_DO | donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca @okfnca | ca.okfn.org @_FACiL | facil.qc.ca @carnetsDM | dianemercier.com http://about.me/dianemercier http://vizualize.me/oKvvtBkJXK?r=oKvvtBkJXK Webographie du libre : https://www.zotero.org/dmercier/items/order/dateModified/sort/desc « Pas de données ouvertes, sans logiciel libre ni formats ouverts » Le 2014-02-21 01:42, Paul Norman a écrit : No one has raised the issue on legal-talk@ since CC 4 was released. *From:*Pierre Béland [mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr] *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:43 AM *To:* diane.merc...@gmail.com; Talk-ca (OSM) *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec Merci Diane pour ces infos. Ce sont là de bonnes nouvelles pour la communauté OSM du Québec. Espérons que nous aurons rapidement des nouvelles de la part du comité légal de OSM là-dessus. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
Eh good news for OSM-Quebec community then. Let's wait for the official confirmation of the exact license adopted. Bonne nouvelle pour les contributeurs OSM-Québec. Attendons cependant la confirmation officielle de la licence exacte adoptée. Pierre De : Diane Mercier diane.merc...@gmail.com À : Simon Poole si...@osmfoundation.org; Paul Norman penor...@mac.com; 'Pierre Béland' pierz...@yahoo.fr; 'Talk-ca (OSM)' talk-ca@openstreetmap.org; legal-t...@openstreetmap.org; le...@osmfoundation.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 21 février 2014 8h43 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec Municipalities and government of Québec will adopt the CC BY 4.0 Diane Le 2014-02-21 07:04, Simon Poole a écrit : This is I believe a simple misunderstanding: le...@osmfoundation.org is the internal list of the LWG legal-t...@openstreetmap.org is the legal discussion mailing list open to the general public. On the matter at hand: as I write in the quoted mail, we are quite open to taking the results of a review of CC by 4.0 wrt compatibility with our contributor terms and the ODbL 1.0 in to account. Note, as I wrote in my mail, it is likely not worth doing for CC by-SA 4.0 as it is clear that a share alike licence will not be CT compatible. Simon Am 21.02.2014 12:12, schrieb Diane Mercier: Translation in english of the title : Municipalities and government of Québec (Canada) will adopt the CC BY 4.0 - Ref. : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2014-February/006069.html Dear Paul, I am sorry to contradict you, but please find attached copy of my conversation with Simon Poole and le...@osmfoundation.org against the CC 4.0 This conversation includes the response of Simon Poole. I also copy to the list of discussion legal-talk @ I reiterate. It is the responsibility of OSM Foundation to instruct his community of his CC 4.0 interpretation as it has done for the CC 2.0 and CC 3.0 And in my humble opinion, the tiles and the BD licenses should updates to CC 4.0 to reduce proliferation of license, etc. Regards, Note : See press releases http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/un-avantage-pour-les-citoyens-montreal-disposera-de-la-licence-ouverte-cc-4-une-premiere-au-canada-en-matieres-de-donnees-ouvertes/ http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/actualites/fiche_autres_actualites.aspx?id=13362 --- Dre Diane Mercier @MTL_DO | donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca @okfnca | ca.okfn.org @_FACiL | facil.qc.ca @carnetsDM | dianemercier.com http://about.me/dianemercier http://vizualize.me/oKvvtBkJXK?r=oKvvtBkJXK Webographie du libre : https://www.zotero.org/dmercier/items/order/dateModified/sort/desc « Pas de données ouvertes, sans logiciel libre ni formats ouverts » Le 2014-02-21 01:42, Paul Norman a écrit : No one has raised the issue on legal-talk@ since CC 4 was released. From:Pierre Béland [mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:43 AM To: diane.merc...@gmail.com; Talk-ca (OSM) Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec Merci Diane pour ces infos. Ce sont là de bonnes nouvelles pour la communauté OSM du Québec. Espérons que nous aurons rapidement des nouvelles de la part du comité légal de OSM là-dessus.___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Updating Langley and use of alt_name?
Hi Paul, I was following your message until this statement, where I got confused. Are you saying the city of Langley is not a city? What do you mean by in British English? That's all fairly simple, but the place node is more complicated. Langley is not a city in British English, but a town. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote: Eh good news for OSM-Quebec community then. Let's wait for the official confirmation of the exact license adopted. I disagree. Any license drafted or adopted by a Canadian government, other than a no-restrictions, equivalent-to-Public-Domain-license, like ODC-PDDL, will require a waiver or clarification from the municipality (or province / territory, or feds) that attribution as provided by OpenStreetMap (wiki page, probably listed on a sub-page) meets their interpretation of attribution. So, adoption of CC-anything-but-0 is bad for local OSM communities. It would likely work out okay in the end for those local OpenStreetMap communities. To my knowledge, every municipality approached for such a waiver has granted it. To OpenStreetMap Foundation at least. For the Open Data community at large, and for the municipality / governement itself, adoption of any restricting license is a disaster. For one thing, not every potential open project will be on the radar of a municipality in the same way that OpenStreetMap is. Too bad for that potential Open Data Project. Perhaps they'll get the waiver they need, perhaps they won't. Again, any government open data publication in Canada must be licensed ODC-PDDL, or else it is a not-open-enough-closed-data-failure. Another sign of bizarre, Open-blindness. I've had government open data representatives say to me, the equivalent of, So what if the license says something complicated. It's open, just do what you want. We won't go after anybody who breaks the license. We just need to be able to shut down anybody who embarrasses us. Ahem. No. 0) If you plan to grant wavers and exemptions anyway, why not just use an unrestricted license? Oh, did you want to only grant exemptions for projects / persons of whom you approve? That doesn't sound very open. 1) If you don't plan to enforce your license terms, why select (or worse, why draft) a license with restrictions? Select ODC-PDDL instead. 2) If you want developers to work with your data, do you want developers who care enough to read, understand and follow your terms, or not? Because your license with restrictions just cut out a portion of those developers. You can still keep the developers that don't read licenses, or don't care about the terms. Congratulations. 3) What, you want to shut down a use of the data that embarrasses you? No. It doesn't work that way. If Open Data can be shown to expose that your mayor is a pathologically lying, bullying, drug addict with possible links to organized crime, you don't get to shut down the analysis just because your boss finds it embarrassing. (It's just a hypothetical example) 4) If you really do plan to grant a waiver or exemption to every project / user who asks for it, shouldn't you have selected an unrestricted Open Data License that didn't place the burden of that extra waiver step upon you (and each potential user) ? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-legal-talk] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@gondwanaland.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: [ ... ] Again, any government open data publication in Canada must be licensed ODC-PDDL, or else it is a not-open-enough-closed-data-failure. I agree that all PSI ought be public domain, with ODC-PDDL or CC0 or some other public domain instrument, since the sane default isn't the default. But calling attribution-only terms a closed-data-failure (BTW, what does that make ODbL? Is OSM the only entity in the world that can use non public domain terms and not be a closed data fail?) seems over the top. Government Open Data, and OpenStreetMap Open Data are different kettles of fish. And so different goal posts apply to each. Government Open Data is more-correctly Citizen Open Data. For that same government to attempt to then restrict the use of that data by the citizens who own it, and pay for it (and, in fact who own the government :-) ) well, that's the part that is over the top. :-) OpenStreetMap data is created by the OpenStreetMap contributors. Where those same contributors decide to place themselves, as a group, along the Open Spectrum has nothing to do with government, er, *strikeover* citizen data. It might also be a a long-standing and heated discussion amongst those same contributors. :-) Thanks, Mike. Cheers. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-legal-talk] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote: Eh good news for OSM-Quebec community then. Let's wait for the official confirmation of the exact license adopted. I disagree. Any license drafted or adopted by a Canadian government, other than a no-restrictions, equivalent-to-Public-Domain-license, like ODC-PDDL, will require a waiver or clarification from the municipality (or province / territory, or feds) that attribution as provided by OpenStreetMap (wiki page, probably listed on a sub-page) meets their interpretation of attribution. So, adoption of CC-anything-but-0 is bad for local OSM communities. It would likely work out okay in the end for those local OpenStreetMap communities. To my knowledge, every municipality approached for such a waiver has granted it. To OpenStreetMap Foundation at least. For the Open Data community at large, and for the municipality / governement itself, adoption of any restricting license is a disaster. For one thing, not every potential open project will be on the radar of a municipality in the same way that OpenStreetMap is. Too bad for that potential Open Data Project. Perhaps they'll get the waiver they need, perhaps they won't. Again, any government open data publication in Canada must be licensed ODC-PDDL, or else it is a not-open-enough-closed-data-failure. I agree that all PSI ought be public domain, with ODC-PDDL or CC0 or some other public domain instrument, since the sane default isn't the default. But calling attribution-only terms a closed-data-failure (BTW, what does that make ODbL? Is OSM the only entity in the world that can use non public domain terms and not be a closed data fail?) seems over the top. Asking for a clarification that provided attribution is OK seems over the top too, at least for CC-BY, especially CC-BY-4.0, given You may satisfy the [attribution conditions] in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. If every attribution needs to be clarified with the licensor to determine if it is OK, then attribution licenses truly are a fail. But that practice is certainly not the intent of such licenses. IMO, IANAL, etc etc. The remainder below is most excellent. Another sign of bizarre, Open-blindness. I've had government open data representatives say to me, the equivalent of, So what if the license says something complicated. It's open, just do what you want. We won't go after anybody who breaks the license. We just need to be able to shut down anybody who embarrasses us. Ahem. No. 0) If you plan to grant wavers and exemptions anyway, why not just use an unrestricted license? Oh, did you want to only grant exemptions for projects / persons of whom you approve? That doesn't sound very open. 1) If you don't plan to enforce your license terms, why select (or worse, why draft) a license with restrictions? Select ODC-PDDL instead. 2) If you want developers to work with your data, do you want developers who care enough to read, understand and follow your terms, or not? Because your license with restrictions just cut out a portion of those developers. You can still keep the developers that don't read licenses, or don't care about the terms. Congratulations. 3) What, you want to shut down a use of the data that embarrasses you? No. It doesn't work that way. If Open Data can be shown to expose that your mayor is a pathologically lying, bullying, drug addict with possible links to organized crime, you don't get to shut down the analysis just because your boss finds it embarrassing. (It's just a hypothetical example) 4) If you really do plan to grant a waiver or exemption to every project / user who asks for it, shouldn't you have selected an unrestricted Open Data License that didn't place the burden of that extra waiver step upon you (and each potential user) ? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
This is I believe a simple misunderstanding: le...@osmfoundation.org is the internal list of the LWG legal-t...@openstreetmap.org is the legal discussion mailing list open to the general public. On the matter at hand: as I write in the quoted mail, we are quite open to taking the results of a review of CC by 4.0 wrt compatibility with our contributor terms and the ODbL 1.0 in to account. Note, as I wrote in my mail, it is likely not worth doing for CC by-SA 4.0 as it is clear that a share alike licence will not be CT compatible. Simon Am 21.02.2014 12:12, schrieb Diane Mercier: Translation in english of the title : Municipalities and government of Québec (Canada) will adopt the CC BY 4.0 - Ref. : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2014-February/006069.html Dear Paul, I am sorry to contradict you, but please find attached copy of my conversation with Simon Poole and le...@osmfoundation.org against the CC 4.0 This conversation includes the response of Simon Poole. I also copy to the list of discussion legal-talk @ I reiterate. It is the responsibility of OSM Foundation to instruct his community of his CC 4.0 interpretation as it has done for the CC 2.0 and CC 3.0 And in my humble opinion, the tiles and the BD licenses should updates to CC 4.0 to reduce proliferation of license, etc. Regards, Note : See press releases http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/un-avantage-pour-les-citoyens-montreal-disposera-de-la-licence-ouverte-cc-4-une-premiere-au-canada-en-matieres-de-donnees-ouvertes/ http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/actualites/fiche_autres_actualites.aspx?id=13362 --- Dre Diane Mercier @MTL_DO | donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca @okfnca | ca.okfn.org @_FACiL | facil.qc.ca @carnetsDM | dianemercier.com http://about.me/dianemercier http://vizualize.me/oKvvtBkJXK?r=oKvvtBkJXK Webographie du libre : https://www.zotero.org/dmercier/items/order/dateModified/sort/desc « Pas de données ouvertes, sans logiciel libre ni formats ouverts » Le 2014-02-21 01:42, Paul Norman a écrit : No one has raised the issue on legal-talk@ since CC 4 was released. *From:*Pierre Béland [mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr] *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:43 AM *To:* diane.merc...@gmail.com; Talk-ca (OSM) *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec Merci Diane pour ces infos. Ce sont là de bonnes nouvelles pour la communauté OSM du Québec. Espérons que nous aurons rapidement des nouvelles de la part du comité légal de OSM là-dessus. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] GNS tag cleanup
My comments largely revolve around the use of editor based deprecation. --- One comment is specific to GNS. The gns:uni and gns:ufi are a primary keys in the source data, and as such should definitely be kept to aid in future matching or conflation of the object. See: http://www.geographic.org/geographic_names/definitions.html#UFI And: http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/ Also of some value is gns:fc. gns:nt should have been used during the original import to tag historic names differently and perhaps shuffle some of them to a historic map database. --- In general I feel the editor delete list approach is bad for two reasons: 1) Tags are deleted behind the back of human editors. There's no effective human review since the deletion is done at save time not load time in common editors. 2) Slowly bit-rotting away data does not give data consumers any notice that their tags are going away. Far better that a data consumer notices the deprecation right away. They could then can adjust their software, or argue for restoration of the data, before the data is long gone under a blizzard of overlapping edits. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: About 6 years ago, a set of data was imported from GNS, consisting of place names, mainly of place=town. Any comments? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Updating Langley and use of alt_name?
Looking at the Township and City of Langley, I see that these relations are duplicate polygons that share the exact same nodes. Then why two relations? Instead, would it be better to simply use alt_name for the city, added to the Township of Langley. Such Classification where you have two admin_level=8 for the same area is a nonsense to my point of view. To show the inconsistencies that this creates, let's have a look at the Nominatim links below. You will see how the Locality, Suburb, Residential highways etc. are shared between the two. And most of the item are classified under the Township. Some other elements under the City. But searching Nominatims, you will see places classified either und the Township, the City of simply Langley. For example, if you search in Nominatim for * Livingstone, Langley. Canada, this will be reported as Livingstone, Township of Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, British-Columbia, Canada * 10 Avenue, Township of Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Colombie-Britannique, Canada * Brookswood, Township of Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Colombie-Britannique, Canada * 201A Street, Brookswood, Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Colombie-Britannique, Canada The best seems to make a choice for which locality title will be showed to describe Langley and use an alt_name tag to describe the second appellation * City Boundary Township of Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Colombie-Britannique, Canada http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2031947 http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=9164399767 * City Boundary City of Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Colombie-Britannique, Canada http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2031946 http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=98083231 Pierre De : William Rieck bi...@thinkers.org À : Paul Norman penor...@mac.com Cc : talk-ca talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 21 février 2014 12h09 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Updating Langley and use of alt_name? Hi Paul, I was following your message until this statement, where I got confused. Are you saying the city of Langley is not a city? What do you mean by in British English? That's all fairly simple, but the place node is more complicated. Langley is not a city in British English, but a town. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-legal-talk] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec
CC BY 3.0 and earlier had onerous attribution requirements for data. I believe 4.0 fixes this. I don't think anyone has suggested contacting a data provider who's licensed under CC 4.0 licenses to clarify attribution. The issue with 3.0 attribution are not purely theoretical, there have been providers who have objected to how we have attribution and we've been unable to use their data. Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@gondwanaland.com wrote: Asking for a clarification that provided attribution is OK seems over the top too, at least for CC-BY, especially CC-BY-4.0, given You may satisfy the [attribution conditions] in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. If every attribution needs to be clarified with the licensor to determine if it is OK, then attribution licenses truly are a fail. But that practice is certainly not the intent of such licenses. IMO, IANAL, etc etc. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Updating Langley and use of alt_name?
Oups I was wrong in identifiying the polygons in JOSM. These are two adjacent polygons, the city being surrounded by the township. The difference in spelling comes from the alt_name=Langley. I should have mapped for the Night of the living map instead. Or maybe not! Pierre De : Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr À : William Rieck bi...@thinkers.org; Paul Norman penor...@mac.com Cc : talk-ca talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 21 février 2014 21h53 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Updating Langley and use of alt_name? Looking at the Township and City of Langley, I see that these relations are duplicate polygons that share the exact same nodes. Then why two relations? Instead, would it be better to simply use alt_name for the city, added to the Township of Langley. Such Classification where you have two admin_level=8 for the same area is a nonsense to my point of view. To show the inconsistencies that this creates, let's have a look at the Nominatim links below. You will see how the Locality, Suburb, Residential highways etc. are shared between the two. And most of the item are classified under the Township. Some other elements under the City. But searching Nominatims, you will see places classified either und the Township, the City of simply Langley. For example, if you search in Nominatim for * Livingstone, Langley. Canada, this will be reported as Livingstone, Township of Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, British-Columbia, Canada * 10 Avenue, Township of Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Colombie-Britannique, Canada * Brookswood, Township of Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Colombie-Britannique, Canada * 201A Street, Brookswood, Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Colombie-Britannique, Canada The best seems to make a choice for which locality title will be showed to describe Langley and use an alt_name tag to describe the second appellation * City Boundary Township of Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Colombie-Britannique, Canada http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2031947 http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=9164399767 * City Boundary City of Langley, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Colombie-Britannique, Canada http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2031946 http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=98083231 Pierre De : William Rieck bi...@thinkers.org À : Paul Norman penor...@mac.com Cc : talk-ca talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 21 février 2014 12h09 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Updating Langley and use of alt_name? Hi Paul, I was following your message until this statement, where I got confused. Are you saying the city of Langley is not a city? What do you mean by in British English? That's all fairly simple, but the place node is more complicated. Langley is not a city in British English, but a town. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
