Re: [Talk-ca] Question?
This is not correct – there are no mandatory tags, and there is no legal reason why a source tag can’t be removed. Incidentally, source tags are perhaps the ones most frequently removed as osm2pgsql drops them by default. If you’re looking at doing an import http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines is what you need to read. It’s important to note the requirement to consult with both the talk-ca@ and the imports@ mailing lists. This is important because it means if you missed something else someone else might spot it. From: Bruno Remy [mailto:bremy.qc...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 6:55 PM To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] Question? * It is mandatory to mention origin and milesim of Opendata, within a tag, for instance "Direction générale des finances publiques - année 2008". Source = http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cadastre_Fran%C3%A7ais/Conditions_d%27utilisation ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Routing tool for openstreetmap.ca?
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Samuel Longiaru wrote: > If your GPS had that, then maybe you wouldn't be fighting with it so much. :) Or if the database contained road surface information, proper speed limit data, and other valuable information, then the routing engine would have a chance at knowing where to send you. It's a challenge to determine whether the routing engine or the database is to blame for the routing choices. With OSM, we have access to the database, and only ourselves to blame if the information required is not in the database! :) -- James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Routing tool for openstreetmap.ca?
- James Ewen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Samuel Longiaru wrote: > > > It seems to me that the OSRM routing could benefit greatly by a 0.6 penalty > > for > > unpaved roads as had been suggested a few time before, but they don't seem > > to > > want to go that way. > > Why incur a penalty just because the roadway is unpaved? A better > solution would be to have the ability to request paved roads only when > routing. That way the user could decide whether an unpaved roadway > should be selected or not. I suppose the best solution would be to > allow the user to select whether unpaved roads can be used for > routing, and also allow the user to select the "penalty" to apply for > unpaved. > > I fight with my GPS all the time. I tell it to never use unpaved > roads, but it will put me onto them quite often. Then on the other > hand it can try and send me on long detours some times when I know I > want to take that 2 mile shortcut on gravel to save 40 miles on > pavement. > > It's pretty tough to teach a computer to be as wishy-washy as a human! > > -- > James > VE6SRV > > ___ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca Paved roads only option? Yes, that's one way. Essentially giving unpaved roads a penalty value (factor) of 0. Then unpaved roads wouldn't be routed on. But consider the case where you are on an unpaved road and wish to route somewhere using the 'avoid unpaved roads' option. It would seem to me that in that case, the engine will need to assess a reasonable penalty for unpaved roads and minimize that penalty by getting you to paved roads by the quickest or shortest means. So either way you stack it, at some point, you need to assign a penalty. Right now, on the OSRM site, you can neither assign a penalty nor elect a paved-roads only option. All roads are reated equally. The yournavigation site must be doing something different, as it yields different (and more logical) results. I'd love to see a routing engine with a "desireability factor" that could be adjustable. If you really loathe unpaved roads, you could set the unpaved roads desirability factor low (i.e., apply a greater penalty for unpaved roads). And if you don't really care all that much whether you take paved or unpaved, then set the factor high. If your GPS had that, then maybe you wouldn't be fighting with it so much. :) Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Question?
(English message will follow)
Bonjour à tous! :-)
Toujours à propos du débat sur les licences, des faits rééls de deux cas de
licence ouverte permettent d'établir les points suivants:
- Depuis 2009 déjà, la DGFiP (Direction générale des finances publiques) en
charge du cadastre en ligne autorise OpenStreetMap et ses contributeurs à
utiliser les données cadastrales
1/Il y a deux conditions à la réutilisation des données du cadastre:
- la réutilisation des données doit former un travail composite. Les
données du cadastre ne peuvent former *à elles seules* les données OSM.
- Il est obligatoire d'indiquer l'origine et le millésime des données
avec un tag source, par exemple "Direction générale des finances publiques
- année 2008".
Source =
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cadastre_Fran%C3%A7ais/Conditions_d%27utilisation
2/Le Gouvernement français publie ses données ouvertes sous les termes de
la "Licence Ouverte" et des données protégées par cette licences ont fait
l'objet d'imports massifs dans OSM.
Source=
http://www.etalab.gouv.fr/pages/Licence_ouverte_Open_licence-5899923.html
Donc ces faits parlent d'eux mêmes et induisent la logique suivante:
SI {
(la licence est ODBL)
OU
(la licence est NON-ODBL ET fait l'objet d'accord écrits de la part du
publicateur des données)
OU
(la licence est LO "Licence Ouverte")
}
ET
Il y a eu un consensus au sein de notre communauté OSM-CA
ALORS
Les données pourraient possiblement être importées .
Est-ce bien cela?
Hi there ! :-)
Still about licences : some facts about two uses of OpenData gives the
following statements:
1/Since 2009 , la DGFiP (French Financial Dept.) in charge of "cadastre"
authorized OpenStreetMap & contributors to use their cadastral opendata.
But exlcusively with two major conditions:
- the use of cadastral must be a composit work. This means that OSM
data cadastre ne peuvent former *could'nt only consist of *Cadastral
data.
- It is mandatory to mention origin and milesim of Opendata, within a
tag, for instance "Direction générale des finances publiques - année 2008".
Source =
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cadastre_Fran%C3%A7ais/Conditions_d%27utilisation
2/ French gouverment has a web-portal with the "OL" licence (Open Licence),
and some data protected by this licence has been the source of
massive-imports into the OpenStreetMap's database.
Source=
http://www.etalab.gouv.fr/pages/Licence_ouverte_Open_licence-5899923.html
So, those facts talk themself and lead to the following logic statement:
IF {
( licence is ODBL)
OR
(licence is NOT ODBL BUT has been the object of an official term-of-use
formally given by the provider of OpenData)
OR
(licence est OL "Open-Licence")
}
AND
A census has been settled within our OSM-CA community
}
THEN
Data may perhaps be imported .
Is that right? Or?
Best regards,
--
Bruno Remy
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Routing tool for openstreetmap.ca?
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Samuel Longiaru wrote: > It seems to me that the OSRM routing could benefit greatly by a 0.6 penalty > for > unpaved roads as had been suggested a few time before, but they don't seem to > want to go that way. Why incur a penalty just because the roadway is unpaved? A better solution would be to have the ability to request paved roads only when routing. That way the user could decide whether an unpaved roadway should be selected or not. I suppose the best solution would be to allow the user to select whether unpaved roads can be used for routing, and also allow the user to select the "penalty" to apply for unpaved. I fight with my GPS all the time. I tell it to never use unpaved roads, but it will put me onto them quite often. Then on the other hand it can try and send me on long detours some times when I know I want to take that 2 mile shortcut on gravel to save 40 miles on pavement. It's pretty tough to teach a computer to be as wishy-washy as a human! -- James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Routing tool for openstreetmap.ca?
- Original Message - From: Richard Weait To: Simon Wood Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Sent: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:14:42 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Routing tool for openstreetmap.ca? On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:51 PM, wrote: > > > > > http://map.project-osrm.org/ > > > > For Canadian data and the rest of the world. Updates the data twice a > > day, as I understand it. > > So is there a way to 'teach' that better routes? > > Blairmore to Calgary was routed through Fort McLeod (257km)... when the > faster/shorted route is via Highway 22 and 533 across to Nanton (217km). > > It might say something about my driving, but that would take a little over > 2hrs rather than suggested 3hr4. Yes, I average more that 70km/hr... > I'm not familiar with either route, or with your driving style. :-) Routers using OSM data will make assumptions where speed limit data in not available so you might be running into issues where the assumptions don't match your driving experience on the ground. In past, I've found that there are connectivity problems in the OSM data, when routers make suggestions taht I wouldn't expect. In fact, that was one of the things we were using the test instance of OSRM for; finding discontinuities, bad one-ways, and other tagging / mapping errors. Richard, Thanks for the link to the OSRM site, but I don't think that was it. I'm familiar with that project and recently have been following the dev list. At least as the demo site stands, it does give crazy routings for the area of South Australia where I am right now. And while it may be related to speed limit tags, it's not for the lack of them, but because they exist. The unpaved roads here have been "correctly" tagged with max_speed=100. While that is the statutory limit for unsigned rural roads in South Australia, it is not reasonable in practice. When OSRM sees that, it coughs up routes that suggest one exit reasonably good motorways and jump onto unpaved roads. Here's a good example: http://osrm.at/2Vl When routing from Adelaide to the Roseworthy Campus, OSRM routes one off the M20 and onto unpaved roads when staying on the M20 for one more exit, then exiting to Redbanks Road is the much more logical choice. The fact that OSRM updates data twice a day is encouraging. I didn't see that anywhere. But I've found that the Gosmore engine, at least as implemented by http://yournavigation.org makes more reasonable assumptions and so comes up with more logical routes. The problem there, however is that yournavigation appears to be using worldwide data over 2 months old. And hence my suggestion for an implementation of a routing feature that uses reasonable assumptions (or as best as we can agree to) and utilizing the latest Canadian data possible. It could be based on either the OSRM engine or the Gosmore engine I would imagine. It seems to me that the OSRM routing could benefit greatly by a 0.6 penalty for unpaved roads as had been suggested a few time before, but they don't seem to want to go that way. Thanks, Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Routing tool for openstreetmap.ca?
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:51 PM, wrote: > > > > > http://map.project-osrm.org/ > > > > For Canadian data and the rest of the world. Updates the data twice a > > day, as I understand it. > > So is there a way to 'teach' that better routes? > > Blairmore to Calgary was routed through Fort McLeod (257km)... when the > faster/shorted route is via Highway 22 and 533 across to Nanton (217km). > > It might say something about my driving, but that would take a little over > 2hrs rather than suggested 3hr4. Yes, I average more that 70km/hr... > I'm not familiar with either route, or with your driving style. :-) Routers using OSM data will make assumptions where speed limit data in not available so you might be running into issues where the assumptions don't match your driving experience on the ground. In past, I've found that there are connectivity problems in the OSM data, when routers make suggestions taht I wouldn't expect. In fact, that was one of the things we were using the test instance of OSRM for; finding discontinuities, bad one-ways, and other tagging / mapping errors. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Routing tool for openstreetmap.ca?
> > http://map.project-osrm.org/ > > For Canadian data and the rest of the world. Updates the data twice a > day, as I understand it. So is there a way to 'teach' that better routes? Blairmore to Calgary was routed through Fort McLeod (257km)... when the faster/shorted route is via Highway 22 and 533 across to Nanton (217km). It might say something about my driving, but that would take a little over 2hrs rather than suggested 3hr4. Yes, I average more that 70km/hr... Simon ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Routing tool for openstreetmap.ca?
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Samuel Longiaru wrote: > Another big thanks here to those involved in setting this up! I do > have a suggestion for the site. Perhaps it is already implemented > elsewhere, in which case maybe all I need is to be reminded of its > location so I can update my bookmarks. > > I think it would be great to have access to a routing engine using as > current a Canadian data extract as possible... like daily or even more > recent. http://map.project-osrm.org/ For Canadian data and the rest of the world. Updates the data twice a day, as I understand it. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Inauguration du nouvel aéroport de Puvirnituq (QC)
Bonjour Rémy, les problèmes sont bien différents à Cap-Haitien au nord de
Haiti, où nous a créons la donnée avec 60 stagiaires haitiens. Notre problème
il est différent, c'est l'accès à internet. Je vois mieux les problèmes
d'édition OSM des pays en développement.
Pierre
>
> De : Bruno Remy
>À : Pierre Béland
>Cc : "talk-ca@openstreetmap.org"
>Envoyé le : Lundi 22 avril 2013 12h20
>Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Inauguration du nouvel aéroport de Puvirnituq (QC)
>
>
>
>Bonjour Pierre! Long time no see ;-)
>Bonjour la communauté Canadienne OSM!
>
>
>Le Ministère des transports du Québec ne prévoit pas publier ce type de
>données (à court terme) mais nous a dit prévoir publier d'autres données,
>telles que les bornes téléphoniques d'urgence, les centres de localités qu'ils
>ont obtenu via le Ministère des Ressources Naturelles, et autres données
>possiblementévidement ces publications passent par le portail du gouv. du
>Québec.
>
>Donc le constat est le suivant:
>1- Les municipalités (Gatineau, Montréal, Québec.) ont publié des données
>ouvertes sur leur propre portails
>2- Le gouvernement provincial (ainsi que certaines municipalités telles que
>Repentigny) ont publié des données ouvertes sur le portail du Gouvernement du
>Québec
>3- Ces différents portails ont des licences "non-odbl"
>
>Ce qui amène aux sujet de réflexion à savoir dans quel sens devons-nous
>travailler, nous, la communauté OSM du Canada:
>
>
A/ Dans le sens d'un tri genre {IF...Then...Else} qui exclut toute donnée
ouverte "non-odbl" et ferme les yeux dessus?
>
>Ou bien
>B/ Dans un sens de la concertation avec les "collectivités publiques"
>(municipales et/ou provinciales et/ou fédérales) pour arriver à un consensus
>juridique sur les licences? (=dialogue)
>Ou bien
>C/ Dans un sens de faire pression auprès des-dites "collectivités publiques"
>pour qu'ils remplacent purement et simplement leur licence "non-odbl" par la
>version originale "pure" de ODBL? (= lobying)
>
>Ou bien ?
>
>
>Ces derniers mois, Pierre Bèland semble avoir obté pour l'option "B" en
>établissant de très bons contacts, et à haut niveau, avec le gouvernement
>provincial du Québec ("Gouvernement Ouvert ou @GouvOuvertQc) et la Ville de
>Montréal ("Montréal Ouvert")
>
>Le résultat est, à mon humble avis, fort positif, puisque ces organismes sont
>de bonne écoute, et ont, dans certains cas, fait un pas en avant vers nous en
>ré-écrivant leur licence pour la rendre "un-peu-plus-compatible-odbl", même
>si, pour les puristes, elles ne sont pas "pur ODBL original".
>
>
>Du côté Capitale Nationale, nous travaillons aussi selon l'option "B'" avec
>des dialogues intéressants et des oreilles réceptives auprès de la Ville de
>Québec, de Capitale Ouverte et du porte-parole du Ministère des Transports à
>Québec.
>
>
>
>
>Maintenant que le site openstreetmap.ca a basculé, et que Richard Weait nous a
>ouvert la porte à une réflexion + large sur les actions de notre communauté,
>nos implications, et nos consensus la question est ouverte:
>
>
>Quel type de consensus désirons-nous/désirez-vous pour le discours à propos
>des données ouvertes?
>
>
>Est-ce , à l'échelle mondiale de la Fondation OpenStreetMap, la licence ODBL
>est la seule licence des imports massifs qui ont eu lieu? Ou bien y-a--t-il
>eu des "exceptions" des "accord" des "ajustements", des "publications purement
>ODBL" dédiées à OSM en dehors des portails officiels "non-odbl" ?
>
>( Il y a de très nombreux exemples de D.O. dans OSM en Europe je ne les
>citerai pas tous ici.: sont ils tous vraiment "100% ODBL"? )
>
>
>Si c'est le cas.. Alors ODBL est "LA SEULE" porte d'entrée Donc:
>Est-ce que ce sont les organismes public canadiens qui sont "en retard" ?
>Devons nous faire du lobbying?
>
>
>Ce ne sont que des questions, et non pas des "pistes de solutions" ou des
>réponses..
>
>
>Il serait juste apprécié qu'on trouve un consensus clair pour savoir dans quel
>direction évoluer.
>
>
>Sincères salutations et bonne journée!
>
>Bruno ;-)
>
>
>PS : si nécessaire... je reformulerai en anglais... sorry.. english version
>could maybe follow in a another mail
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Le 22 avril 2013 09:02, Pierre Béland a écrit :
>
>Bonjour Rémy
>>
>>malheureusement, nous n'avons pas d'imagerie Bing haute resolution pour cette
>>zone. Et ça me surprendrait que le ministère des transports accepte de nous
>>fournir des données avec licence ODbL.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Pierre
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> De : Bruno Remy
>>>À : "talk-ca@openstreetmap.org"
>>>Envoyé le : Lundi 22 avril 2013 8h11
>>>Objet : [Talk-ca] Inauguration du nouvel aéroport de Puvirnituq (QC)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Aujourd’hui, c’est l’inauguration du nouvel aéroport de Puvirnituq.
>>>Guillaume Paradis, porte-parole du Ministère des Transports du Québec y
>>>participe !
>>>(https://twitter.com/Guill_Paradis/status/326285638808788993)
>>>L'occasi
[Talk-ca] Routing tool for openstreetmap.ca?
Another big thanks here to those involved in setting this up! I do have a suggestion for the site. Perhaps it is already implemented elsewhere, in which case maybe all I need is to be reminded of its location so I can update my bookmarks. I think it would be great to have access to a routing engine using as current a Canadian data extract as possible... like daily or even more recent. I seem to remember that a year or so ago, we had access to one that was ostensibly for Europe only, but which did include fairly recent Canadian data. I remember using it while doing some CanVec imports. Darned if I can find it now. It really was a great help. I remember that in my case, it highlighted the need for special access= tagging of emergency-only crossovers on divided highways. I've found a few sites that route off of OSM data, but the data are not always current as far as I can tell... and while being a separate issue, the routing plugin on JOSM hasn't worked for me for many months now. Anyway, like I said, if there is an existing tool, please let me know. Otherwise, I think one based on up-to-date Canadian data would be a big help not only for mapping, but provide a great public service as well. Thanks, Samuel Longiaru Kamloops, BC ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Inauguration du nouvel aéroport de Puvirnituq (QC)
Bonjour Pierre! Long time no see ;-)
Bonjour la communauté Canadienne OSM!
Le Ministère des transports du Québec ne prévoit pas publier ce type de
données (à court terme) mais nous a dit prévoir publier d'autres données,
telles que les bornes téléphoniques d'urgence, les centres de localités
qu'ils ont obtenu via le Ministère des Ressources Naturelles, et autres
données possiblementévidement ces publications passent par le portail
du gouv. du Québec.
Donc le constat est le suivant:
1- Les municipalités (Gatineau, Montréal, Québec.) ont publié des
données ouvertes sur leur propre portails
2- Le gouvernement provincial (ainsi que certaines municipalités telles que
Repentigny) ont publié des données ouvertes sur le portail du Gouvernement
du Québec
3- Ces différents portails ont des licences "non-odbl"
*Ce qui amène aux sujet de réflexion à savoir dans quel sens devons-nous
travailler, nous, la communauté OSM du Canada: *
A/ Dans le sens d'un tri genre {IF...Then...Else} qui exclut toute donnée
ouverte "non-odbl" et ferme les yeux dessus?
Ou bien
B/ Dans un sens de la concertation avec les "collectivités publiques"
(municipales et/ou provinciales et/ou fédérales) pour arriver à un
consensus juridique sur les licences? (=dialogue)
Ou bien
C/ Dans un sens de faire pression auprès des-dites "collectivités
publiques" pour qu'ils remplacent purement et simplement leur licence
"non-odbl" par la version originale "pure" de ODBL? (= lobying)
Ou bien ?
Ces derniers mois, Pierre Bèland semble avoir obté pour l'option "B" en
établissant de très bons contacts, et à haut niveau, avec le gouvernement
provincial du Québec ("Gouvernement Ouvert
")
Le résultat est, à mon humble avis, fort positif, puisque ces organismes
sont de bonne écoute, et ont, dans certains cas, fait un pas en avant vers
nous en ré-écrivant leur licence pour la rendre
"un-peu-plus-compatible-odbl", même si, pour les puristes, elles ne sont
pas "pur ODBL original".
Du côté Capitale Nationale, nous travaillons aussi selon l'option "B'" avec
des dialogues intéressants et des oreilles réceptives auprès de la Ville de
Québec, de Capitale Ouverte
Re: [Talk-ca] openstreetmap.ca is up!
Being returned to the last edited thing is the best! If I saw all of Canada every time I went to the website I'd be pulling lots of tiles and queries to get where I want to go. Cheers Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] openstreetmap.ca is up!
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > What zoom and center point? How does that work on different devices / > resolution / orientation? > The map view can be based on a bounding box, so a strategically-selected bounding box should handle all of these variables well. We should probably exclude the northern reaches of the territories from the bbox otherwise it will look like OpenArcticMap thanks to mercator. > How will this be implemented? What effect will this have on a returning > visitor? What else? > I find that being returned to the last thing I viewed is annoying/incorrect more often than not, so maybe have it centred on Canada every visit? I'm not sure about this though. -- AJ Ashton ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] openstreetmap.ca is up!
Flesh it out. Try to fill in all four points, rather than just the idea. What zoom and center point? How does that work on different devices / resolution / orientation? How will this be implemented? What effect will this have on a returning visitor? What else? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Inauguration du nouvel aéroport de Puvirnituq (QC)
Bonjour Rémy malheureusement, nous n'avons pas d'imagerie Bing haute resolution pour cette zone. Et ça me surprendrait que le ministère des transports accepte de nous fournir des données avec licence ODbL. Pierre > > De : Bruno Remy >À : "talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" >Envoyé le : Lundi 22 avril 2013 8h11 >Objet : [Talk-ca] Inauguration du nouvel aéroport de Puvirnituq (QC) > > > >Aujourd’hui, c’est l’inauguration du nouvel aéroport de Puvirnituq. Guillaume >Paradis, porte-parole du Ministère des Transports du Québec y participe ! >(https://twitter.com/Guill_Paradis/status/326285638808788993) >L'occasion peut-être de travailler un peu dans cette zone pour en améliorer la >carte ? :-) >Bonne journée à tous! > >Bruno Remy >___ >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] Inauguration du nouvel aéroport de Puvirnituq (QC)
Aujourd’hui, c’est l’inauguration du nouvel aéroport de Puvirnituq. Guillaume Paradis, porte-parole du Ministère des Transports du Québec y participe ! (https://twitter.com/Guill_Paradis/status/326285638808788993) L'occasion peut-être de travailler un peu dans cette zone pour en améliorer la carte ? :-) Bonne journée à tous! Bruno Remy ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] openstreetmap.ca is up!
The same for me. Thanks Best regards Bruno Remy Le 2013-04-22 07:10, "Duncan Hill" a écrit : > I'll second Harald's suggestion to have the map show Canada on load. > > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Harald Kliems wrote: > >> First, thanks to Darryl and Richard for taking care of this! >> >> I have one quick, easy (I assume), and probably non-controversial >> suggestion: when I clicked on the link, I got a map of Europe, not >> Canada. I know that this is only relevant for the first visit but >> maybe it can be fixed anyway. >> >> Best, >> Harald. >> >> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Richard Weait wrote: >> > Dear all, >> > >> > Darryl delivered on his promise, and openstreetmap.ca registration has >> been >> > transferred to OSMF / me. Thank you, again, Darryl for taking care of >> the >> > domain for the past years, and for offering it to the community, rather >> than >> > letting it lapse. >> > >> > For now, if you visit openstreetmap.ca, it will look very familiar. >> Very >> > much like osm.org, in fact. :-) I'm happy with that. It's >> unsurprising, >> > and easy to maintain. And in the recent; past we haven't done anything >> else >> > with it, so I think that that this is an improvement. >> > >> > But what else would we like to do? To move forward on any big changes >> to >> > openstreetmap.ca, I would hope to see a number of things in equal >> measure: >> > >> > - interesting idea(s) >> > - broad consensus >> > - active participation >> > - resources >> > >> > I don't foresee any deadline for new ideas or implementation, so this >> can >> > really be a matter for careful consideration over time. We've done >> pretty >> > well so far, without any grand unification web site. >> > >> > And thanks again, Darryl. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Richard >> > >> > ___ >> > Talk-ca mailing list >> > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! >> Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Talk-ca] openstreetmap.ca is up!
I'll second Harald's suggestion to have the map show Canada on load. On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Harald Kliems wrote: > First, thanks to Darryl and Richard for taking care of this! > > I have one quick, easy (I assume), and probably non-controversial > suggestion: when I clicked on the link, I got a map of Europe, not > Canada. I know that this is only relevant for the first visit but > maybe it can be fixed anyway. > > Best, > Harald. > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Darryl delivered on his promise, and openstreetmap.ca registration has > been > > transferred to OSMF / me. Thank you, again, Darryl for taking care of > the > > domain for the past years, and for offering it to the community, rather > than > > letting it lapse. > > > > For now, if you visit openstreetmap.ca, it will look very familiar. > Very > > much like osm.org, in fact. :-) I'm happy with that. It's > unsurprising, > > and easy to maintain. And in the recent; past we haven't done anything > else > > with it, so I think that that this is an improvement. > > > > But what else would we like to do? To move forward on any big changes to > > openstreetmap.ca, I would hope to see a number of things in equal > measure: > > > > - interesting idea(s) > > - broad consensus > > - active participation > > - resources > > > > I don't foresee any deadline for new ideas or implementation, so this can > > really be a matter for careful consideration over time. We've done > pretty > > well so far, without any grand unification web site. > > > > And thanks again, Darryl. > > > > Best regards, > > Richard > > > > ___ > > Talk-ca mailing list > > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > > > > > -- > Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! > Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 > > ___ > 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
