Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility Approval Request: Open Data Licence for the Sunshine Coast Regional District (B.C., Canada)
Kathleen,
Thanks; will do!
Best Regards,
Brent Fraser
On 3/10/2017 10:55 AM, Kathleen Lu wrote:
Hi Brent,
To get an opinion from the LWG, you should email
le...@osmfoundation.org <mailto:le...@osmfoundation.org>. They
recently opined on the Ottawa version of OGL Canada. The minutes for
that are here:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes#Licensing_Working_Group
-Kathleen
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:04 PM Brent Fraser <bfra...@geoanalytic.com
<mailto:bfra...@geoanalytic.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
I've had a request to improve the stream and trail data around Gibsons
BC using data from the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD
http://www.scrd.ca/data-download). Their license
(http://www.scrd.ca/scrd_disclaimer) seems to permits this.
Stewart on the Talk-CA list suggested I get their license approved by
the OSM's Licensing Working Group. Is this the place to get that
approval or do I need to go somewhere else?
And FYI, Alan over on Talk-CA recommmended that I get the SCRD to add
the following to their license:
"Data available at the Sunshine Coast Regional District's
Open Data
Portal site under the following location:
http://www.scrd.ca/data-download is released in accordance with the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of British
Columbia."
just to remove any confusion over the stated Exemption:
"This licence does not grant you any right to use:
Information or Records not accessible under the Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act (B.C.);"
Thanks!
--
Best Regards,
Brent Fraser
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility Approval Request: Open Data Licence for the Sunshine Coast Regional District (B.C., Canada)
Hi all, I've had a request to improve the stream and trail data around Gibsons BC using data from the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD http://www.scrd.ca/data-download). Their license (http://www.scrd.ca/scrd_disclaimer) seems to permits this. Stewart on the Talk-CA list suggested I get their license approved by the OSM's Licensing Working Group. Is this the place to get that approval or do I need to go somewhere else? And FYI, Alan over on Talk-CA recommmended that I get the SCRD to add the following to their license: "Data available at the Sunshine Coast Regional District's Open Data Portal site under the following location: http://www.scrd.ca/data-download is released in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of British Columbia." just to remove any confusion over the stated Exemption: "This licence does not grant you any right to use: Information or Records not accessible under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (B.C.);" Thanks! -- Best Regards, Brent Fraser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-ca] importing data requiring attribution
Alan, Dang! I thought I was close.I had SCRD fix their cut-and-paste error and agree that an addition to the OSM' Contributors page would be adequate for attribution.I'll see if I can get them to add something similar. Maybe I should contact the OSM Licensing Working Group first. Thanks! Best Regards, Brent Fraser On 3/7/2017 12:14 PM, Alan Richards wrote: From what I've seen so far, the opinion seems to be that the OGL-BC devived licenses like this one require a statement about the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This was done for the City of Vancouver license, and I've just recently recieved an update from the City of New Westminster along the same lines. They were very happy to adjust it after I contacted them though. "Data available in the blah blah blah datasets location of the City of New Westminster's Open Data site under the following location: http://opendata.newwestcity.ca/datasets <http://opendata.newwestcity.ca/datasets> is released in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of British Columbia." On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com <mailto:scr...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 2017-03-05 09:44 PM, Brent Fraser wrote: > Hi all, > > I've had a request to improve the stream and trail data around Gibsons > BC using data from the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD > http://www.scrd.ca/data-download <http://www.scrd.ca/data-download>). Their license > (http://www.scrd.ca/scrd_disclaimer <http://www.scrd.ca/scrd_disclaimer>) permits this In addition to James's link, you'd need to have the SCRD licence approved by the Licensing Working Group. Takes a couple of months. I see a glaring error in the text: they copypasta'd North Van's licence, but didn't find and replace properly, leaving the attribution as “Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence - North Vancouver.” Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca <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
Re: [Talk-ca] [Qgis-user] QGOS maps fort Garmin GPS
Stephen, Yeah I saw the other problems with surrounding creeks, but if I'm going to replace the geometry with data from SCRD, I need to check that their license agreement allows that. OSM is NOT a satellite image map; it is strictly a vector database of points, lines and polygons. There are three ways to enter data into OSM: 1. Upload your GPS tracks 2. Digitize features using Bing imagery as a backdrop (this may be where the confusion comes from) 3. Do "bulk uploads" of license-compatible data (e.g. shapefiles of Canvec 1:50k Fed data) OSM is a collection of the best available, license-compatible data. Bulk uploads are usually frowned upon, due to the ease of overwriting existing data, so extra care must be taken. I'll CC the OSM-Ca list (and we should drop out of the QGIS list unless we have QGIS-related issues) Best Regards, Brent Fraser On 3/5/2017 5:28 PM, Stephen Wandling wrote: Brent, OK. You could have changed Robinson to Clough at the same time, if I had mentioned it. But, the map is still missing Joe Smith Creek, which falls between Molyneux and Clough, and vast amounts of forks up the mountain for both of them. You may already know this, but you can get all the shape files at: http://www.scrd.ca/data-download If you can easily upload them to OSM, with their labels, then that would be useful to many people. You can also get kmz files there. Importing them into Google Map shows the line, but not the label. Through all of this, I have come to realize something huge. And that is simply that OSM is a sat view map. For my GPS, I am only interested in topo maps. I see enough of the trees when I am up there, so all I want on the GPS is streams and trails. I will work with the contour lines that are on existing GPS map. OSM, seemingly based on Bing maps, would not server my purposes. Thanks for your insights, work and views. Stephen On 05/03/2017 3:23 PM, Brent Fraser wrote: Stephen, Based on the info from SCRD, I changed the name of Joe Smith Creek to Molyneux Creek. Best Regards, Brent Fraser On 3/5/2017 3:41 PM, Brent Fraser wrote: Hey Stephan, This discussion may belong on the OSM-Canada mailing list (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca) so others can comment. All maps contain errors, some intentional, others by mistake, and still others due to the passage of time. The great thing about OSM is you can correct them! The OSM community holds local knowledge in very high regard, and one of the basic guidelines is "If you think the data is wrong, change it." I find the quality of the data very good, perhaps due to the majority of the editors have a passion for mapping. I had a look at Joe Smith Creek in OSM. It was imported from Canvec v10 (the Fed 1:50k data), and named the same on the BC 1:20k sheet. If you like, I could change the name... Best Regards, Brent Fraser On 3/5/2017 2:01 PM, Stephen Wandling wrote: Phil, For a government mapping agency to have a problem, it first has to exist. I am told that in 1992, British Columbia dismantled it's cartography department and fired all of the cartographers. I am also told that no work had been done on any of the 20K maps in the prior 10 years. So, only the private resource extraction corporations have access to up-to-date digital data and at a price that I certainly can not afford. I had a look at OSM mountain biking maps last night, your second link below. I could see that someone had probably 'walked' what they thought was Joe Smith Creek with their GPS, and extended what had been on the base map. First, that is Molyneux creek and not Joe Smith, the base map was wrong and secondly that creek comes from a large number of forks up the mountain, so they only dealt with a small percentage of it's reach. My immediate thought was "This is Wikipedia for Cartography!". Errors laid upon errors. No use of local knowledge or the Streams shape files available on the Regional District's site. That is a can of worms I am not interested in delving into. Cheers, Stephen On 04/03/2017 8:28 PM, Phil (The Geek) Wyatt wrote: No problems Stephen, Unfortunately many government agencies can't keep up with edits of new tracks/trails but that is the beauty of Open Street Map. Your contribution, by adding tracks, means that all the folks making derivative products get the benefits. You also get the benefit of their knowledge in the creation of products to suit your GPS. Indeed you can even use OSM mapping as a background in QGIS so you get the same benefits immediately. If you have some GPS files, drop me a few and I will get them loaded for you to get you started. The Mountain bike community are quite active in some areas and have great wiki information on tagging for trails http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking https://openmtbmap.org/ Cheers - Phil -Original Messa
Re: [Talk-ca] Powerlines in Canada
You may want to also keep an eye on http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/news/2012/rnte.html Best Regards, Brent Fraser On 1/20/2013 10:03 AM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: As requested, I would like to give an explaining statement on those Canadian powerlines which I have edited so far. Personally, I was driven by the intention to achieve a similar standard of quality for all parts of the world, including Canada. Until 2012, very small pieces of powerline have been gradually imported from CANVEC database. They did not have any towers. They had intersections with other powerlines which would immediately break electrical devices in reality. In 2012, I have merged and realigned some Canadian powerlines according to their logical layout. As one powerline usually connects two substations, it does not make sense to split it into many small pieces. A typical double-circuit powerline (6 cables) usually has three segments: two feeders at the first substation, one long trunk line between both substations and two feeders at the other substation. A single-circuit powerline (3 cables), which is more vulnerable to outages, directly connects two substations without any feeders. Each circuit has its own entrance to the substation in order to enable a quick response in case of breakdown. Circuits are usually arranged according to their voltage, e.g. 230kV circuits on the West side and 120kV circuits on the East side. Within a substation, one or several transformers are connecting these circuits. How can you distinguish single and double circuits? The following photo shows a typical powerline in Toronto, Canada: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Toronto_Power_Line_L14W_Tower_39.JPG This is a double-circuit powerline: on the left (northern) side is circuit L14W, on the right (southern) side is circuit L13W. L indicates a powerline originating in Leaside Substation, W indicates a powerline arriving in Wiltshire Substation. 13 and 14 are line numbers. L13W;L14W ist the reference for the double circuit running through power tower number 39. On the right side, you can see another single-power circuit (3 cables) called L 15W. All towers usually have subsequent numbers, however, within substations they may have additional letters like 37B. ref=37B would be the appropriate tag for this tower. L13W, L14W and L15W are 115kV powerlines, as 230kV powerlines usually have numbers 200 and 500kV powerlines usually have numbers 500. This numbering scheme applies for Ontario only. In Quebec, powerlines usually have a four-digit number where the first digit indicates the voltage. The following construction announcement displays the power network in Québec City: http://www.hydroquebec.com/projets/pdf/charlesbourg_is.pdf You can see single-circuit 735kV powerlines, double-circuit 315kV powerlines and some single-circuit 69kV powerlines. Le Poste des Laurentides has a northern section for 735kV powerlines, a central section for 315kV powerlines and a southern section for 230kV powerlines. There is a small segment where a 230kV powerline (circuit #2369) and a 69kV powerline (circuit #757) are joint by sharing the same towers, so there is a short double-circuit segment. It would make sense to create a relation for those two powerlines Each voltage was considered as an optimal solution in the year of construction: 69kV lines in 1910, 230kV lines in 1940, 735kV lines in 1970. Changing the voltage would require some billion-dollar investments, so power companies are trying to keep their electrical devices as long as possible for economic reasons. However, HydroQuebec is gradually going to replace its old 69kV powerlines with new, more powerful 230kV powerlines. For example, Poste Lemoilou, a new substation in Québec City, is scheduled to open soon. As you can see, construction announcements contain a lot of useful information that is worth being integrated into OSM. http://www.hydroquebec.com/projects/limoilou.html A single piece of powerline is easier to maintain in case of lifecycle update (e.g. decommission). However, I do not object to the reconstruction of merged powerline segments if you are willing to maintain them. You are invited to add or verify tags for Canadian powerlines which I have described above. Each substation has a label with its (bilingual) name, its address, its operator, and many more useful informations. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Toronto_Gerrard_TS.jpg Even substations of underground cables like Lakeshore Jarvis are labelled. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Toronto_Lakeshore_Jarvis_TS.jpg Yours, cordialement and with best regards, FK270673, also known as mapper #42429 P.S.: Je prie les utilsateurs québecois de me pardonner une annonce anglophone même s'il concerne tout le Canada. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] GPS inaccuracy
Tom, Your results are not unusual. A newer handheld navigation-grade receiver has an accuracy of 3 to 5 meters at best (older ones without WAAS have an accuracy of 10 m). Slowly changing (over hours) atmospheric effects can introduce an systematic offset into your coordinates of 3 to 5 or even 10 meters. And as others have pointed out, the positional [in]accuracy of Bing and Canvec could exceed 10 meters. Best Regards, Brent Fraser On 11/19/2012 8:29 AM, Tom Taylor wrote: I will do a resurvey in the way you suggest. It was really disappointing to find I couldn't trust my GPS at all (well, I did some mental adjustment of waypoints to place building entrances), and being off by a constant amount for 4 km certainly makes one suspicious. A bit to the north, my GPS survey of some footpaths behind a school matched Bing nicely. It would be really interesting to find some sort of disconnect in between. Je manquais de la courtoisie envers les francophones qui suivent cette liste. En sommaire, j'ai tracé une piste de longueur totale environ 4 km, mais l'a trouvé toujours environ 10 metres à l'ouest des entités déja presents sur la carte et les images Bing. Je vais faire un autre sondage pour mieux comprendre la situation. Tom Taylor On 19/11/2012 8:37 AM, Connors, Bernie (SNB) wrote: Tom, The transmission lines would not affect your GPS accuracy. I agree with Pierre that you could repeat the track and see if the two tracks are similar. Another thing you could do is identify several identifiable points in the Bing Imagery such as the intersection of two sidewalks, the corner of a sports field, etc. Go to those points and use your GPS to record a waypoint and use position averaging with about 3 minutes of recording to get a more accurate location and then compare those waypoints to the Bing imagery. Position the Bing imagery so they match up with your waypoints and then look at your GPS tracks top see how they line up with the Bing Imagery. Bernie. -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Land Information Infrastructure Unit, SNB bernie.conn...@snb.ca ... ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Old CanVec versions
I've got a copy of v6 on my network. Did you want one sheet or all of it? Best Regards, Brent Fraser On 10/15/2011 2:06 AM, Paul Norman wrote: Does anyone know where I can find old CanVec versions? I was looking into http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.608497lon=-63.629537zoom=18layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.608497lon=-63.629537zoom=18layers=M which I was pointed to on IRC and has a footway and a track running over each other, but not sharing nodes and both were from CanVec 6.0. CanVec 8.0 only has the footway. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [HOT] Flooding in Richelieu River, Quebec, Canada :Follow-up(Complement of information)
Daniel, The SRTM data has 90m cell size, while the CDED (from the Geobase site) has 30m cells (and 1m height resolution) which might rendered better contours. Best Regards, Brent Fraser On 5/27/2011 11:52 AM, Daniel Begin wrote: Bonjour tous le monde, I have generated a 30m and 31m contour lines for Richelieu river and lake Champlain (using SRTM data). It fits the 30m contour provided by Jean-Guilhem but doesn't seem to fit pretty well the flooded wetland area provided by Pierre. Any idea if this data can be used (usgs licence point of view)? And if it can be usefull? Daniel *From:*Pierre Béland [mailto:infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr] *Sent:* May-27-11 12:40 *To:* HOT Openstreetmap *Cc:* talk-ca *Subject:* Re: [HOT] [Talk-ca] Flooding in Richelieu River, Quebec,Canada :Follow-up(Complement of information) Jean-Guilhem Cailton wrote on 2011-05-27 According to the shapefile data, Lake Champlain, and hence Venise-en-Québec are above the 30 m elevation. The shapefile contains punctual elevations of 31 m in this area (Plage Missisquoi, for example). The next contour line would be the 40 m one, but it does not look like it would be very useful for this. This is exact. The 40 meter contour line is not usefull for us. Thanks Jean-Guilhem. Pierre Béland ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Off-topic: general Canvec issues
Daniel, While this is not directly related to OpenStreetMap, I'm posting this here since the OSM community seems to be the most active set of public users of Canvec data. The goal of this post is to improve Canvec (and therefore hopefully improve OSM). As a method of testing the latest release of Mapserver (http://mapserver.org/), I attempted to use Canvec v7 to render a CanTopo http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/product/search.do?id=A6291EF5-F3FC-A29F-3162-DE4DB194FD38 style map. See my mapserver post http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-users/2011-May/068731.html for more details on my efforts. While the issues I covered on the Mapserver email list are specific to Mapserver rendering shortcomings, there were a few other issues related to the Canvec data. One of the main issues I ran into was the Toponymy (TO) layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec:_Toponymy_%28TO%29 is represented by point geometry preventing me from rendering the mountain range text (for example) in a curved manner as done in CanTopo. Is there any possibility of having NRCan change the geometry to LINESTRING? Or perhaps having a _TO_1580009_1 (linestring) shapefile for those names representing linear features in addition to the existing _TO_1580009_0 (point) shapefile? Some of the other less serious issues (these can be handled by pre-processing the Canvec data): Contour layer (FO_1030009_1): no attribute for major/minor contours preventing bolding of major contours Stream Layer (HD_1470009_1): major streams broken at tributary intersections preventing single label for streams Thanks! -- Best Regards, Brent Fraser ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Notes on a Saskatchewan import
Tyler, The values for the name keys look good! Is the highway geometry from the road network or Statscan? Best Regards, Brent Fraser On 3/2/2011 9:57 PM, Tyler Gunn wrote: On 2011-03-02, at 8:38 PM, Brent Fraser wrote: Tyler, The problem I have with the Statscan data is they have two attributes in the shapefile: NAMEMacLeod TYPEAVE where I want one attribute, and according to OSM best practices, I want no abbreviations: MacLeod Avenue Dunno what the Canvec data will look like... Best Regards, Brent Fraser My conversion would make that a single value: name: MacLeod Avenue I'll email you an example of the file and you can let me know if you want the whole province ( 257mb uncompressed; 37mb compressed ). Or I can just extract areas you want to work with. Tyler -- Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com http://www.egunn.com/ ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Notes on a Saskatchewan import
Hmmm. Maybe I'll hold off on importing any more Canvec roads until Edition 8 (due in April?). Are there any other major changes in Ed. 8? If not, I may continue to upload non-road features from Ed 7... Best Regards, Brent Fraser On 3/1/2011 11:57 AM, Bégin, Daniel wrote: Bonjour Brent, For your information ... Canvec: Next Release will include the current GeoBase road network, including street names GeoBase Road Network: Next release will include address ranges if completed GeoSask Road Network: is older (2004) than Canvec (2010) Cheers, Daniel -Original Message- From: Brent Fraser [mailto:bfra...@geoanalytic.com] Sent: March 1, 2011 10:41 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] Notes on a Saskatchewan import To All, I finally had got around to doing my first OSM data import session. I had some spare time and was frustrated with the lack of OSM progress in Saskatchewan, so I imported a Canvec sub tile for Melfort Sask (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.8086lon=-104.6061zoom=12layers=O). It was surprisingly easy, thanks to the great work of Daniel Bégin in supplying .osm formatted Canvec data, and Steve Singer's blog on importing Canvec (http://scanningpages.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/openstreetmap-canvec-importing/). I used Josm to import the geometry and Potlatch to add the street names (the street naming was tedious, but somehow felt rewarding). For others planning to do some OSM work in Saskatchewan, here's a summary of free and license-friendly sources of street GIS data: Canvec (.osm format) ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/osm/pub - old geometry - no street names - no address ranges GeoSask Road Network ftp://portaldata:freed...@ftp.isc.ca/PackagedData/Sask_Highways/SURN09.zip - geometry same as Canvec (old) - complete street names, but poor capitalization and spelling: MACLOED AVENUE - no address ranges Geobase Road Network http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/search.do?produit=nrnlanguage=en - new geometry - complete street names, poor capitalization and spelling: Macloed Avenue - no address ranges StatsCan http://geodepot.statcan.gc.ca/2006/040120011618150421032019/1814062006_05-eng.jsp - newer geometry but positional accuracy poor - incomplete street names (unless you combine NAME and TYPE attributes) MacLeod AVE - has address ranges -- Best Regards, Brent Fraser ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Notes on a Saskatchewan import
To All, I finally had got around to doing my first OSM data import session. I had some spare time and was frustrated with the lack of OSM progress in Saskatchewan, so I imported a Canvec sub tile for Melfort Sask (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.8086lon=-104.6061zoom=12layers=O). It was surprisingly easy, thanks to the great work of Daniel Bégin in supplying .osm formatted Canvec data, and Steve Singer's blog on importing Canvec (http://scanningpages.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/openstreetmap-canvec-importing/). I used Josm to import the geometry and Potlatch to add the street names (the street naming was tedious, but somehow felt rewarding). For others planning to do some OSM work in Saskatchewan, here's a summary of free and license-friendly sources of street GIS data: Canvec (.osm format) ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/osm/pub - old geometry - no street names - no address ranges GeoSask Road Network ftp://portaldata:freed...@ftp.isc.ca/PackagedData/Sask_Highways/SURN09.zip - geometry same as Canvec (old) - complete street names, but poor capitalization and spelling: MACLOED AVENUE - no address ranges Geobase Road Network http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/search.do?produit=nrnlanguage=en - new geometry - complete street names, poor capitalization and spelling: Macloed Avenue - no address ranges StatsCan http://geodepot.statcan.gc.ca/2006/040120011618150421032019/1814062006_05-eng.jsp - newer geometry but positional accuracy poor - incomplete street names (unless you combine NAME and TYPE attributes) MacLeod AVE - has address ranges -- Best Regards, Brent Fraser ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Over-classification of rural roads in Canvec data?
Tyler, Have you considered using the 1:20k data published by the Manitoba government? I think the license is compatible with OSM's, but you'd have to have a look at it. https://mli2.gov.mb.ca/ (free registration required for downloading) (Click on Topographic Maps - 1:20,000 Seamless) The transportation file has roads with 10 to 20 classes Best Regards, Brent Fraser Tyler Gunn wrote: Hello, I'm ALMOST done importing the entirety of the 062N* area of Canvec data and wanted to pass along something I observed: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.171lon=-100.413zoom=11layers=M The Canvec data had all the numbered roads listed as Primary. However, in the case of MB the general rule is 1-2 digit road numbers are Provincial Trunk Highways (ie primary), and 3 digit road numbers are Provincial Roads (ie secondary). Easy enough to fix. The one that I'm somewhat mixed on is the classification of all the minor roads in rural MB; Canvec has all the all the gray roads in the example link above listed as tertiary. Given that I know these roads to be nothing more than dirt/gravel roads between farm properties I have downgraded the lot of them to highway=unclassified. Given the definition of unclassified roads, I felt this to be more appropriate (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified): From the wiki: In a rural context, these can be distinguished from tertiary roads by: 1 lack of (or lower) classification (if your country has a classification level for tertiary) 2 being narrow, such that vehicles must slow down to pass in opposite directions 3 being unpaved (in larger/poorer countries) 4 being more for access than for through-traffic between towns and villages 2,3, and 4 definitely apply for these roads. I figure this makes sense and just wanted to see if anyone else noticed this type of thing with the Canvec data in their areas. Tyler ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Over-classification of rural roads in Canvec data?
, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF THE CLAIM, DEMAND OR ACTION ALLEGING ANY LOSS, INJURY OR DAMAGES WHICH MAY RESULT FROM THE USER’S USE OR POSSESSION OF THE DATA. MANITOBA SHALL NOT BE LIABLE IN ANY WAY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE DATA. 3.02 The User shall indemnify and save harmless Manitoba and its Ministers, officers, employees and agents from and against any claim, demand or action, irrespective of the nature of the cause of the claim, demand or action, alleging loss, costs, expense, damages or injuries (including injuries resulting in death) arising out of the User’s use or possession of the Data. 4.00Choice of Law 4.01 This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws in force in the Province of Manitoba, Canada and the parties irrevocably attorn to the jurisdiction of and agree to bring any actions exclusively in the courts of Manitoba. 5.00User Information 5.01 The following information is being collected for the purpose of maintaining a directory of Users of the Data and for future notification purposes. Any personal information provided is protected by the privacy provisions contained in The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Manitoba). If you have any questions about the information being gathered, please contact the Access and Privacy Coordinator at (204) 945-4170. Your Last Name: _ Your First Name: _ Your Organization: Your Address:___ ___ Your Postal Code:___ Your E-mail Address:_ This Agreement has been agreed to and executed by the User, or its duly authorized representative, on the date noted below: SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: FOR THE USER: __ _ (Sign) Witness Name: (Print) Position:__ Date: _ Richard Weait wrote: Oops, should have gone to the list. On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:52:14 -0600, Brent Fraser bfra...@geoanalytic.com wrote: Tyler, Have you considered using the 1:20k data published by the Manitoba government? I think the license is compatible with OSM's, but you'd have to have a look at it. https://mli2.gov.mb.ca/ (free registration required for downloading) (Click on Topographic Maps - 1:20,000 Seamless) The transportation file has roads with 10 to 20 classes Best Regards, Brent Fraser Hey Brent, Thanks for that; it looks like there's quite a wealth of data available there!!! I am going to have to read over the license again and make sure it's compatible; there is a LOAD of data in there that I could make use of, including municipal boundaries, building shapes, etc. The road network is also quite comprehensive as you say and has a wealth of classification data that could supplement the Canvec data quite nicely. Great to see there is yet another useful resource out there! I feel like a broken record. ;-) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import_guidelines#Make_sure_data_license_is_OK I wasn't able to find the license on the Manitoba site. Any chance you could link to it, and send it to the License Working Group? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping Private Roads?
My friend is very comfortable traveling around the property. I'm not so comfortable with his offer to take me around the property (he has an employee ID, I don't). The airspace overhead is not restricted (at least not any more than non-company property nearby), so the road grid information could be obtained from a small airplane flying overhead. Obtaining the street names from overhead would be a problem. The issue in my mind is the collection of GPS tracks (on the ground), would/could the employer object? Sure, they could do anything they like. The key to minimizing problems is to respect the company's ownership/right to use the land. I'd recommend asking for permission in writing (and get a response in writing). And get a vistor's pass for yourself (there could liability issues if you don't). Further could this sort of data collection cause any grief to Open Street Map? If you have their permission to be on the property, no problem with the data collection. Since you are creating the data, there's no data ownership problem. But I'm not a lawyer, so don't take the above as a professional legal opinion... I gather that some of the people living near the property do sometimes try to use the property as a shortcut route (and when caught are charged with trespass). Better maps would not help the trespass situation... Colin McGregor ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec.osm samples
My personal favorite, Waterton Park (82H04)in Alberta, specifically the townsite: 49.0 to 49.1 -113.9 to -114.0 Best Regards, Brent Fraser Bégin wrote: Bonjour! I'm ready to release some samples to get your feedback on the Canvec.osm product. I wont be able to release complete NTS datasets because tiling procedure is not completed yet. So, if you send me the bounding box of the area you wish to look at (max 0.1 X 0.1 degrees lat/lon - all include in the same map sheet), I should be able to create the sample an provide it to you and to the community. I will identify all created sample in the wiki (Canvec page) and they will be made available from NRCan ftp site. I might produce a dozen of datasets, so, first in - first out! Cheers, Daniel ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] PR stuff Ottawa Opendata Sat 24th April
John, Maybe someone at some of the Open Source software outfits (like DMSolutions, Mapgears, or Gateway Geomatics) could help? Or maybe ask on the OSGeo email list... Best regards, Brent Fraser john whelan wrote: http://opendataottawa.ca/ It's at City Hall and it looks like the press will be present. It's local so I could pop down. However having just me without a laptop, or banner probably wouldn't do much good. Any suggestions? and no I don't have access to a colour printer to print a banner etc. Thanks John ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Nts tile names
Sam, Each CanVec tile has a date in its XML metadata (in the lineagesrcinfosrctime tag). Perhaps it might be useful. Best Regards, Brent Fraser Sam Vekemans wrote: Thanks, I even have access to it on my mobile :) 'year valid' is what we need (doesnt need to be exact). In other news, i found the pictorial representation of the country in NTS tile #'s. It'll be handy later. Great find! cheers, Sam On 9/19/09, Frank Steggink stegg...@steggink.org wrote: Sam Vekemans wrote: On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Frank Steggink stegg...@steggink.org mailto:stegg...@steggink.org wrote: Hi Sam, Yes, i think there is a limit to the number of rows that GoogleSpreadsheet will allow.. so im not sure how to deal with that yet. .. it's a work in progress :-) Split up per province, or per 8x4 degree sheet? By the way, I noticed you've started correcting the rows I've merged. I've completed them now. An in case you didn,'t know, here [1] is a NRCan site where you can find all tile names. Could be useful for the spreadsheet, but adding them might be a very big task, or you need to export the data from Google, and import them later ;) Not sure if that is possible. hi, can you attach the link again? I think it was missed. Cheers, Sam Oops, forgot to insert the actual link :) It's here: http://maps.nrcan.gc.ca/topo_metadata/topo_metadata_e.php Frank ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Canvec 4 released
To All, I just received an email saying CanVec 4 has been released. See the Release Notes link at the bottom of http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/collection/28954.html for more info. File Naming Gripe: And personally, I think they put the Edition number on the wrong file. It should be on the zip file (not the shapefile contained inside) so you can determine if your copy needs to be replaced BEFORE you download it and open it up. Fortunately they provide a text file of all the NTS sheets indicating if they've been changed: http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/canvec/doc/CanVec_release_4.txt Best Regards, Brent Fraser GeoAnalytic Inc. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] silly borders
And for those who like to parse latitude and longitude: http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/products.html#coordinates Best Regards, Brent Fraser GeoAnalytic Inc. Calgary, Alberta Mepham, Michael wrote: Stupid spell checker GeoBase, not Georgia. The values in GeoBase for the US borders are from the International Boundary Commission and are consensus values for the internal boundaries. Mike Mepham Federal/Provincial/Territorial Liaison GeoConnections Program Natural Resources Canada E-Mail: mmep...@nrcan.gc.ca Ottawa Regina Phone: (613) 992-8549 (306) 780-3634 Fax: (613) 947-2410 (306) 780-5191 - Original Message - From: talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tue Mar 31 00:15:40 2009 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] silly borders On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Mepham, Michael michael.mep...@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca wrote: Just accept what has been put into Georgia as the consensus solution, or go crazy trying to fix it! Can you point us towards this Georgia of which you speak? Somewhere there has to be a document that lists the metes and bounds that describe the consensus solution. Better yet, a list of lat/long points since that's what OSM plays with. James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] StatsCan Road Network
StatsCan has road network data available too: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=92-500-Xlang=eng Not as much geometric detail, and less positional accuracy than CanVec, but it does have address ranges. E.G. Attributes for a road (4th ave SW)in Calgary: RB_UID=135363 NAME=4 TYPE=AVE DIRECTION=SW ADDR_FM_LE=707 ADDR_TO_LE=707 ADDR_FM_RG=700 ADDR_TO_RG=744 Brent Fraser GeoAnalytic Inc. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian data - GeoGratis (and an accuracy rant)
I'm sure they mean accuracy instead of precision. Precision is just the number of digits stored/displayed, whereas accuracy is how well the data reflects reality. Just because you chose to display coordinates to the nanometer doesn't mean they are that accurate. Not that I want to confuse the issue, but it can be important. Most (some? all?) of the CanVec data originally came from the 1:50,000 NTS topographic maps . Within the past few decades some have been updated from medium-resolution satellite imagery, and some have been updated with data from the various Provincial 1:20,000 mapping initiatives. At any rate, the Quantitative Horizontal Accuracy Value is given in the metadata for each NTS sheet, with a number 30 meters being common. To stir the pot even more, the Manitoba government (https://mli2.gov.mb.ca//) has it's 1:20k topographic maps available for free (and the license looks libre too). Their metadata gives accuracy values (Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy) of 1.25 meters, 2.5 meters, etc. Wow! I expected 20 meters at best. And don't get me started on the accuracy of hand-held navigation-grade GPS receivers... Best Regards, Brent Fraser Richard Weait wrote: Hi folks, From the good folks at Natural Resources Canada (GeoBase). Yes you can use the data found on GeoGratis site . The licences are identical. The only differences are the copyrights, one is GeoBase, the other one is NRCan (GeoGratis). Please note: The data found on GeoGratis could have different planimetric precision and could not fit exactly with the precise GeoBASe data or OSM data. Please refer to the metada info of the files you will be using. I'm sure that we are all excited about the additional data. Please note the guidance regarding precision. Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
