Re: [Talk-ca] import complaints
On 11-12-02 16:07 , Richard Weait wrote: So let's start treating external like we treat aerial imagery. Let's don't, and say we did. For much of Canada, aerials aren't useful. Look at, say, Elliot Lake: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.3846&lon=-82.6852&zoom=13&layers=M - aerials don't even have road-level resolution, and have a systematic shift. I think there are two drivers to getting mappers: 1) population density 2) fiercely proprietary national cartographic agencies. Anyone who ever had to fight with the UK OS would basically map their whole bloody county out of spite. Viva imports! If I'd seen my neighbourhood completely blank, I would've thought that OSM was a totally lame project and never contributed to it. cheers, Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] import complaints
I /think/ I'm responsible for that big error in Hudson Bay. I've fixed it, but can't quite figure out how two small mistakes caused that big glitch. Perhaps the real problem is that the coastlines are updated only a few times a year, I fixed the problem as soon as I saw it, and yet it will persist on all levels. (I don't know if this can be changed, don't interpret this as a demand or passing of the blame for the error) In regards to the imports. I mostly import in areas without any decent aerial imagery, or in some cases people (though in some cases images came after the import) . If someone is willing to pay me to map these areas (I don't mind donating time, but I need to eat/get there) and give me good aerial imagery and a high quality GPS I will swear off Canvec, but that doesn't seem likely. Sam Dyck On 11-12-02 04:56 PM, talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: We could ban imports. But we still want to have access to external sources. So let's start treating external like we treat aerial imagery. When you do a foot survey you take notes and photos and draw sketches. Then you map it by referring to your notes and photos and sketches and aerial imagery. That's how we notice that the aerial imagery is three years old doesn't show the new shopping plaza or extension on the old mill. And we consider all of those sources then take the best we can from every source and put it in OSM. That's why OSM is so good where we have a rich community. OSM is better than any other single source. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2
The .ODBL license you have agreed to allows OSM to change the license in the future on any data you have uploaded to OSM. Are you quite certain that the Manitoba Lands Initiative license allows you to do this? CANVEC is a little different in that the licensing has been looked into from both sides and both seem comfortable. Cheerio John > The license for the Manitoba Lands Initiative is compatible with OSM, > and thus is kosher. > > 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] Re-licensing -- a good excuse to rework some data.
Personal view - why not just import the Canvec data? If you use keeprite to have a qeikc look at the area http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=11&lat=45.41013&lon=-75.64619&layers=B00T&ch=0%2C30%2C40%2C50%2C60%2C70%2C90%2C100%2C110%2C120%2C130%2C150%2C160%2C170%2C180%2C191%2C192%2C193%2C194%2C195%2C196%2C197%2C198%2C201%2C202%2C203%2C204%2C205%2C206%2C207%2C208%2C210%2C220%2C231%2C232%2C270%2C281%2C282%2C283%2C284%2C291%2C292%2C293%2C311%2C312%2C350&show_ign=1&show_tmpign=1 it appears that some roads aren't connected. Visually it prints and shows on the web fine but the routing programs can't use it. Also manually transcribing road names from CANVEC may introduce errors that are difficult to detect except by labour intensive manual inspection. The CANVEC data has been verified already. The other concern is when you are working with Bing or any aerial photograph when was the image taken? When someone comes to update the map a CANVEC import gives some indication of version ie 6.0 etc so its a little easier to see the changes when a new import is available. This is a purely personal view but ask yourself why CANVEC uses tags such as source CANVEC 6.0. Cheerio John On 1 December 2011 21:56, Tyler Gunn wrote: > I've noticed many people are worried about the pending purge of data > from users who has not agreed to the new terms. > > There was a large are in Winnipeg contributed by the user VReimer, who > has yet to agree to the new license. Further, there has been question > in the past where this user obtained the data, and whether it was > legit or not. > > So, as an example of what we can accomplish with a bit of effort, I > decided to replace the entire area bounded by St. Mary's Road to the > West, St. Anne's Road to the East, Bishop Grandin to the North, and > the Perimeter Highway to the South. > > I'm quite pleased with the results; the road network is smooth and > clean, even at high zoom levels, and best of all it's all legit: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.82032&lon=-97.096&zoom=15&layers=M > > I used a combination of: > - Bing imagery, which for the top half of the area was available in > VERY high resolution. Knowing that Bing is not always aligned well, I > used a combination of city of winnipeg Cadastral polygons (available > from Manitoba Lands Initiative), and the City of Winnipeg 50cm aerial > imagery, which is VERY well aligned to the cadastral data, to re-align > the Bing imagery. > - in the bottom half of the area, only the MLI aerial imagery was > available. Not as high resolution as Bing, but certainly decent. > - land use areas were derived by overlaying aerial imagery with the > cadastral polygons (showing individual lots and land parcels) , and > then combining them in Quantum GIS into the larger landuse blobs. > - the road network is 100% hand-drawn from re-aligned aerial imagery > - road attributes and surfaces are derived from my knowledge of the > area and the imagery. > - road names are copied from CanVec tiles. > > Let me know what you all think. > > 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] Toronto area OSM Mappy Hour / Open house
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > Hi All, > > OSM contributors are welcome to join us for an Open house / Mappy Hour > on Saturday 10 December 2011. [ ... ] > http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Toronto/events/42176392/ I want to make this really clear. If you are an OSM mapper, and you can make it to this event next week, then you will be warmly welcomed! Really! You should attend. Some others who post on this list have already confirmed. Some of the silent majority of mappers (who are regulars at our monthly meetups) will be there too. IT WILL BE FUN FOR EVERYONE. I promise. See you there, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] import complaints
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Connors, Bernie (SNB) wrote: > Richard, > > Do you have a link to Import Guidelines that are specific to Canvec > data? Sure. All imports should comply with the OSM import guidelines. My preference is that we do not import at all. We should treat outside sources the way we treat aerial imagery. This is a deliberately provocative statement. More below. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import_guidelines The automated edit guidelines apply to imports, and to any mass / bulk edit. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct Now, on imports. I'm very grateful that NRCan has been generous and allowed us to include Canadian government data in OSM. It's even better that folks at NRCan participate in the OSM community. This is not about them, and they are not at fault. It is my opinion that imports delay or end the growth of local OSM communities at the expense of "some data is better than perfect data". How? In the old days, a person might hear of OSM, look at the map and see that their neighbourhood is a blank spot on the map. That motivated them to map their neighbourhood, and "boom" all of a sudden that new mapper is $SuperMapper. Pick one of the old-timers on the talk@ list for a value for $SuperMapper. Today, a new mapper might look at rural Ontario, and think, "Ah, all the roads are there. No need for me to map." And we have missed the opportunity to create a new SuperMapper. So this might be true of any place, where mappers have mapped from a distance. Why pick on imports? Imports are too fast and too easy. That leads to insufficient care being applied to each node and way. When we map from aerial imagery we carefully consider each node placed on each way, because we have to do them all one by one, based on what we interpret from the imagery. That's good. With an import, we might look at the 20 km**2 and check a few spots, but it is not possible to give the same attention to each and every node that we would as we draw them by hand. So we get broken imports because we don't pay enough attention. Our tools have improved over the last seven years to reduce the gross errors that we make with imports but that is no substitute for the individual care and attention that we give to the nodes and ways we create through hard(er) work. So imports are worse than referring to an external source like tracing aerial imagery. The quality is lower. And the result can prevent or dissuade new mappers from joining OSM. In the alternative universe, where we did not import, new mappers found their neighbourhoods as blank spots and started mapping. In that alternative universe talk-ca has 10X or 100X readers. Every town in Canada has one or more local mappers. today, we might say every city in Canada has one or more mappers. In ten years we might have a mapper in every town. In that alternate universe, ten years from now, perhaps there is a mapper in every Canadian village. Is there a difference? Yes. We want a mapper on every block. Imagine, if a coffee shop around the corner changes name, how long would it take to update in OSM with a mapper on every block? "Not long" is the answer. With only one or more mappers in the nearest city, OSM will never know. We want a mapper on every block and if imports are discouraging that, we need to fix the way that we are doing imports. We could ban imports. But we still want to have access to external sources. So let's start treating external like we treat aerial imagery. When you do a foot survey you take notes and photos and draw sketches. Then you map it by referring to your notes and photos and sketches and aerial imagery. That's how we notice that the aerial imagery is three years old doesn't show the new shopping plaza or extension on the old mill. And we consider all of those sources then take the best we can from every source and put it in OSM. That's why OSM is so good where we have a rich community. OSM is better than any other single source. On the other hand, just doing an import can only be as good as that single source. So let's start using external sources as one of many sources for our mapping, not a replacement for mapping. Best regards (and catching my breath after that rant) Richard. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] import complaints
Richard, Do you have a link to Import Guidelines that are specific to Canvec data? Bernie. -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Service New Brunswick (506) 444-2077 45°56'25.21"N, 66°38'53.65"W www.snb.ca/geonb/ -Original Message- From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] Sent: Friday, 2011-12-02 13:23 To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: [Talk-ca] import complaints dear all, I've heard some LOUD complaints about imports in Canada. Please be sure to follow the import guidelines, including special import accounts, and please be sure to check your work and fix errors. Latest issue appears to be a large broken water polygon. 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
Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Sam Dyck wrote: > Excellent, but is the City of Winnipeg aerial imagery kosher for use > with OSM? I was under the impression that the aside from the Transit > Department, the city doesn't believe in open data. Are you using a WMS > server to access it or downloading the images and loading them into > JSOM? Although the city of Winnipeg data itself would be ideal to use, it's not available in an OSM compatible license. However, Manitoba Lands Initiative does provide a lower resolution version of the same imagery at https://mli2.gov.mb.ca/ortho_refresh/img_ortho_refresh_all_sid/img_refresh_rgb_0.5m_wpg_area_mosaic.sid (free login required). I use that, and am serving up a TMS layer, which I consume in JOSM. If you'd like the URL for your own use let me know and I can give you assistance. The license for the Manitoba Lands Initiative is compatible with OSM, and thus is kosher. Tyler ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2
Excellent, but is the City of Winnipeg aerial imagery kosher for use with OSM? I was under the impression that the aside from the Transit Department, the city doesn't believe in open data. Are you using a WMS server to access it or downloading the images and loading them into JSOM? Sam Dyck On 12/2/11, talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to > talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-ca-ow...@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-licensing -- a good excuse to rework some data. (Tyler Gunn) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 20:56:27 -0600 > From: Tyler Gunn > To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > Subject: [Talk-ca] Re-licensing -- a good excuse to rework some data. > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I've noticed many people are worried about the pending purge of data > from users who has not agreed to the new terms. > > There was a large are in Winnipeg contributed by the user VReimer, who > has yet to agree to the new license. Further, there has been question > in the past where this user obtained the data, and whether it was > legit or not. > > So, as an example of what we can accomplish with a bit of effort, I > decided to replace the entire area bounded by St. Mary's Road to the > West, St. Anne's Road to the East, Bishop Grandin to the North, and > the Perimeter Highway to the South. > > I'm quite pleased with the results; the road network is smooth and > clean, even at high zoom levels, and best of all it's all legit: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.82032&lon=-97.096&zoom=15&layers=M > > I used a combination of: > - Bing imagery, which for the top half of the area was available in > VERY high resolution. Knowing that Bing is not always aligned well, I > used a combination of city of winnipeg Cadastral polygons (available > from Manitoba Lands Initiative), and the City of Winnipeg 50cm aerial > imagery, which is VERY well aligned to the cadastral data, to re-align > the Bing imagery. > - in the bottom half of the area, only the MLI aerial imagery was > available. Not as high resolution as Bing, but certainly decent. > - land use areas were derived by overlaying aerial imagery with the > cadastral polygons (showing individual lots and land parcels) , and > then combining them in Quantum GIS into the larger landuse blobs. > - the road network is 100% hand-drawn from re-aligned aerial imagery > - road attributes and surfaces are derived from my knowledge of the > area and the imagery. > - road names are copied from CanVec tiles. > > Let me know what you all think. > > Tyler > > > > -- > > ___ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > > End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2 > ** > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] import complaints
dear all, I've heard some LOUD complaints about imports in Canada. Please be sure to follow the import guidelines, including special import accounts, and please be sure to check your work and fix errors. Latest issue appears to be a large broken water polygon. Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
