Re: [Talk-ca] Fredericton WMS Offset
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:02 PM, nicholas ingalls wrote: > I have to believe that that the process I used would be correct or else > sites like geofabrik compare would be in violation of the license. If I had > used the fredericton data to create a new offset I could see there being a > problem but this was not the case, the fredericton data was simply used to > verify the bing imagery. > > tl;dr No offset was derived from the Fredericton data, it was simply used to > check the Bing imagery. Okay, so if there had been an identifiable offset in the Bing imagery, what would you have done then? Would you have thrown up your hands and said "There's no possible way that I can continue!" If I check my street name spelling against Google Maps, and notice that there is a spelling mistake in my version, can I delete my name based on that information? I can't give a definitive answer, just posing a question. I've always wondered how we can put names on the roads. People say that they are using "local knowledge", or they base the information on what they observe on the street signs. However, given the situation where a new subdivision is planned, and the roads and street names are drawn on the planning document, then the builders build the streets, and put up street signs based on the planning document, then someone reads the sign before they share that information with others to create that "common knowledge". If the original planning document is a under a copyright, how can we map the street names in OSM? -- James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Fredericton WMS Offset
> What is the "official" word on the practice of checking non-approved > data sources, not for inclusion in OSM, but to ensure what is being > included is correct? > That is honestly a good question! I guess to me this would be a bit of a grey area, nowhere is the practice explicitly mentioned. I agree with you on the google example, that would certainly be crossing the line. I hadn't considered this a violation as before I used the data to align the Bing imagery I checked the license for the data. Aligning imagery certainly fit within the license. This is actually the first time I have done this and I thought of it more as a separate process than adding data to OSM. At no point was the fredericton data and the osm data loaded at the same time, and no offset data was derived from the fredericton data. It was simply used to see if the bing offset was correct. It was not used to create a new offset in order to draw osm data. I have to believe that that the process I used would be correct or else sites like geofabrik compare would be in violation of the license. If I had used the fredericton data to create a new offset I could see there being a problem but this was not the case, the fredericton data was simply used to verify the bing imagery. tl;dr No offset was derived from the Fredericton data, it was simply used to check the Bing imagery. That's my two cents. ingals ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Fredericton WMS Offset
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:34 PM, nicholas ingalls wrote: > In reference to the orientation problems, I generally orient according to > gps tracks and I also use the road centre lines from the fredericton open > data portal to ensure areas are correct. (I know the data hasn't been > cleared to use, I simply use it to check the bing imagery) This is the second time in the last little while that a statement like this has been made... What is the "official" word on the practice of checking non-approved data sources, not for inclusion in OSM, but to ensure what is being included is correct? I understand the concept, but you are using a derivative of data that is not allowed. I can say that I am entering street names from memory, but I'm "Just checking Google Maps to ensure I'm spelling the name right." Using non-approved sources to align the Bing imagery is pretty much the same thing. -- James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Fredericton WMS Offset
Hello! Yes I'm going to be moving to fredericton for university in a short time so I thought it would be nice to get building polygons so I can easily add addresses from foot surveys. Is the data that SNB (You and your co-workers) provide available for use with OSM? As in is it possible to trace off the aerial imagery? I've often lamented the fact that the GeoNB viewer has excellent aerial imagery for much of the province while bing imagery is terrible outside major cities. If it is avaliable is it possible to get it as a WMS layer for JOSM? I've looked into the ArcGIS rest APIs but they don't seem very friendly with JOSM. In reference to the orientation problems, I generally orient according to gps tracks and I also use the road centre lines from the fredericton open data portal to ensure areas are correct. (I know the data hasn't been cleared to use, I simply use it to check the bing imagery) Cheers, ingalls On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Connors, Bernie (SNB) wrote: > Atmospheric errors are likely to small to be detected by your consumer > grade GPS. Satellite geometry and the number of visible satellites would > have more of an effect and this varies constantly as the satellites transit > across the sky and as you experience varying satellite visibility as you > move past obstructions (buildings, trees, bridges, hills, etc. > > ** ** > > Bernie. > > -- > > Bernie Connors, P.Eng > > bernie.conn...@unb.ca > > New Maryland, NB > > ** ** > > *From:* nicholas ingalls [mailto:nicholas.inga...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, 2013-01-03 15:24 > *To:* Andrew Buck; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Fredericton WMS Offset > > ** ** > > Yeah I did a bit more research afterwards to double check, including going > and getting gps more gps traces and the current (Bing) imagery appears to > be dead on. I also checked it with some centre lines from another data > source (Not importing just to check the imagery) and they also verified > that the Bing imagery is correct. > > ** ** > > Thanks for the feedback! I hadn't thought about the atmospheric > interference. > > ** ** > > Cheers, > > ingalls > > ** ** > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Andrew Buck > wrote: > > Hi, > > I am not from the area, but I did want to post my 2 cents about this > issue. Your idea of how the offset got started sounds correct. I > would caution you though that GPS traces can be offset, too, due to > atmospheric effects. To really get a good trace with no offset you > need to do a few traces on different days of the same road (or path is > better since it is narrow) and through an area with few buildings > around as these can cause offsets, too. > > Other than those issues, if you trust your traces then I see no reason > not to fix the offset, but as I said make sure your traces are good > first. > > -AndrewBuck > > ** ** > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
