Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada
Hi Bjenk - > I am not sure why there is confusion about Ottawa's ODL and it's > equivalence to OGL because the information is public but here it is to > clarify: > > "The Open Data License is based on version 2.0 of the “Open Government > Licence – Canada” which was developed through public consultation and > consultation with other jurisdictions" I sense your frustration, and understand that this process must be trying. But it's partly an artifact of the licence itself. The Open Government Licence - Canada, version 2.0 (OGL-CA) is compatible with OSM's licence. This was confirmed in 2013: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-November/005906.html (Paul Norman tells me that there's an official notice somewhere from Government confirming this, but neither he nor I can find it.) Unfortunately, one trait of the licence inherited from its parent (the Open Government Licence United Kingdom 2.0, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/) is that it is not _reusable_. Here, reusable means that the licence is not specific to an organization or jurisdiction. The OGL-CA has Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada baked in as Information Provider. No-one but the Federal government can be that Information Provider. So even if Municipality of X wished to adopt the “Open Government Licence - X” by replacing ‘Canada’ with ‘X’, it would have to make textual changes to the licence, and in doing so — and this is the critical part — makes a new and different licence from the OGL-CA. (Paul N. previously suggested that the UK OGL was more reusable, and had better CC BY and ODC BY compatibility than OGL-CA.) So we can't use Ottawa's data under the Federal OGL-CA. Even with the best intentions, adoption of the OGL-CA results in fragmentation. For example, there's the "Open Government Licence – Ontario", the "Open Government Licence – Toronto" and the "Open Government Licence - Toronto Public Library". All of these, though based on OGL-CA, are *different* licences, and necessarily so. Accepting the OGL-CA hasn't allowed OSM to automatically accept all the derivatives under it. (It also helps that OSM explicitly has a statement from the Federal Government saying that we have permission to use their data. This permission does not flow down to provincial or municipal data.) If one happens to be a government, or a large commercial entity, one can muster lawyers to ensure one's continued existence if there's a legal challenge. OpenStreetMap doesn't have that luxury. In order to ensure continuity of the OSM project, a degree of caution is required. So while access to open data is valued by the community, it would be lovely if someone could pay for all the lawyers needed to go over the licences on behalf of OSM/OSMF too. To the best of my knowledge this assistance has seldom been forthcoming. Best Wishes, Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
It's to do with the way government works and is structured. What you have is an official interpretation which carries weight. Quite a lot of weight. Essentially both Canada and the UK are run by acts of parliament. However these are normally interpreted by civil servants to keep things running smoothly. For example in the UK by an Act of parliament of 1837 bicycles are not permitted to use the sidewalks but administratively you will not be prosecuted for cycling on the sidewalk in certain parts of the UK. The act hasn't been repealed but it is simply not enforced. The decision was taken by a civil servant after consultations but is upheld by the government. The day to day running is done by civil servants interpreting the minister's wishes or act of Parliament. There will be discussion and debate at a greater depth than either a minister or Parliament have the time for and the decision will be recorded together with the reasons for and against it. This can lead to a formal report with a recommendation. It is a brave manager or minister who doesn't accept the recommendations. Have a look at Yes Minister and you'll see that brave here means foolish. There has to be a level of trust between the politicians and the civil service for this to work. The direction is set by the politicians but the day to day stuff by the civil servants. If a civil servant screws up then its special assignment time which is the civil service way of terminating you. So an interpretation is not given lightly. It has taken three or four years of discussion to get this far. My understanding is the City of Ottawa licence actually makes reference to the Federal government licence in the FAQ basically because all the expertise, hard work and effort on licensing was done at the federal level. I think in this case you have to rely on civil servants and retired civil servants expertise. Both Bjenk and I are of the opinion, as his his manager, that for practical purposes the OGL-CA and the Municipal equivalent are identical. There are a number of CANVEC employees and retired employees floating around as well who will have an opinion but I think it will be supportive. The open data manager at Ottawa is also of the same opinion. My casual contacts at TB on the Open Data side are also of the same opinion. My hope is that we can accept Open Data from municipalities that are covered by the equivalent of the OGL-CA. What you seem to be asking for is a resolution or vote by each municipality of their councillors before OSM can use the data. This I think is getting towards the unreasonable and unwieldy side of things. Canadian cities would like to encourage their citizens to walk, cycle and use public transport. Tagging which paths maybe used by cycles helps both sides. In Ottawa until I sat down with the cycling specialist and pointed out on their cycle maps one path running through a park was on their cycle maps and an identical one in the same park wasn't so how was I to know which could be used? I was armed with photos from both paths and of the signs, they were identical. After that the city expanded its official cycle path network by many kms. "The *city of Ottawa* has a vibrant *cycling* culture and now boasts over 600 km of multi-use pathways, *bike* lanes, off-road paths and paved shoulders" We need the City to identify these so they can be correctly tagged on the map. Often there are no signs on a path to say if it maybe used by cyclists or not. Metrolink has done a fair bit of address mapping in OSM in support of getting people to use public transport. They're in Toronto by the way. Both sides are better off with imported bus stops. Life was so much simpler when OSM was just a group of cyclists going round with GPS devices recording tracks but I think times are changing and there are benefits. The main problem in my mind is controlling the quality of data for an import and in its careful merging with existing data. For the City of Ottawa data the quality is reasonably good and some of it is already present in the CANVEC data. The GTFS bus stop position data is far better than many American cities because of the automated stop announcement system to assist blind or partially sighted people. They went out and very carefully checked the position of each and every bus stop with a high accuracy GPS system so it would be correct. There is another issue and that is volume of data. If you are using OSM data on a phone off line the smaller the database the faster it is but that is a different kettle of fish. At least if its there you can filter out those things you don't need. My suggestion is both the OGL-CA and the municipality equivalent should be acceptable to OSM based on the interpretations you have from civil servants. Cheerio John On 21 January 2017 at 19:37, Paul Norman wrote: > On 1/21/2017 4:34 PM, john whelan wrote: > >> What you have is an interpretation of the Federal Government license
Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
Well then that would mean we couldnt use any goverment licensed data as it would be an "interpretation" of a license and not made law in a house of commons/other law making place, which is unreasonable to expect. If lawyers are consulted to judge compatibility with the license they chose to release their data under what is the issue here? On Jan 21, 2017 7:38 PM, "Paul Norman" wrote: > On 1/21/2017 4:34 PM, john whelan wrote: > >> What you have is an interpretation of the Federal Government license. >> From my background in the civil service my understanding is for a statement >> it would have to be over a minister's signature or by act of parliament. >> No one else has the authority unless it is delegated. >> > > If that's true and we can't rely on a statement from a government employee > to interpret their license, then we can no longer use OGL-CA data. > > ___ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada
I am not sure why there is confusion about Ottawa's ODL and it's equivalence to OGL because the information is public but here it is to clarify: "The Open Data License is based on version 2.0 of the “Open Government Licence – Canada” which was developed through public consultation and consultation with other jurisdictions" http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-license-change-faq Sent from my iPhone___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
On 1/21/2017 4:34 PM, john whelan wrote: What you have is an interpretation of the Federal Government license. From my background in the civil service my understanding is for a statement it would have to be over a minister's signature or by act of parliament. No one else has the authority unless it is delegated. If that's true and we can't rely on a statement from a government employee to interpret their license, then we can no longer use OGL-CA data. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
What you have is an interpretation of the Federal Government license. From my background in the civil service my understanding is for a statement it would have to be over a minister's signature or by act of parliament. No one else has the authority unless it is delegated. Cheerio John On 21 January 2017 at 18:53, Paul Norman wrote: > On 1/21/2017 3:48 PM, James wrote: > > It is, the thing they changed was federal references to municipal ones. > Which is why i'm confused the license is "not compatible" > > > We have a statement from the Federal government for their data under their > license. The Federal government cannot make a statement about City of > Ottawa data under the City of Ottawa license. > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
On 1/21/2017 3:48 PM, James wrote: It is, the thing they changed was federal references to municipal ones. Which is why i'm confused the license is "not compatible" We have a statement from the Federal government for their data under their license. The Federal government cannot make a statement about City of Ottawa data under the City of Ottawa license. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
It is, the thing they changed was federal references to municipal ones. Which is why i'm confused the license is "not compatible" On Jan 21, 2017 6:42 PM, "john whelan" wrote: > >I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll > have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them > all the time. > > My understanding is the City of Ottawa one is based on the Federal > Government one. > > Cheerio John > > On 21 January 2017 at 18:11, Paul Norman wrote: > >> On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote: >> >>> Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from the >>> same source and the same licence. I think I might have included one pitch >>> sport soccer. The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was I must confess >>> taken from their open data source. >>> >> >> I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll >> have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them >> all the time. >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> > > > ___ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them all the time. My understanding is the City of Ottawa one is based on the Federal Government one. Cheerio John On 21 January 2017 at 18:11, Paul Norman wrote: > On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote: > >> Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from the >> same source and the same licence. I think I might have included one pitch >> sport soccer. The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was I must confess >> taken from their open data source. >> > > I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll > have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them > all the time. > > > ___ > 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote: Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from the same source and the same licence. I think I might have included one pitch sport soccer. The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was I must confess taken from their open data source. I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them all the time. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
On 1/20/2017 6:00 PM, James wrote: Is OGL-CA not compatible with osm? The license isn't OGL-CA. OGL-CA is the license from the Federal government, while the City of Ottawa uses the ODL. In the case of OGL-CA data it's compatible because they gave a statement on compatibility. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
A couple of things to consider and what follows is in my name and I do not speak for StatCan: Open Data is the way Governments are going to release data to be used by the public freely. Many are working hard through consultations to further these initiatives precisely because they are the sole medium by which Governments are going to release data that normally the public would never have access to. Open Data for Governments are released under licenses, which were modelled after extensive consultations to be as permissive as they can be under the responsibility of these jurisdictions. OGL-Canada was done to allow Canadians and anyone really to use data from Federal Government and that allows anyone to not have to go to a specific group or owner of datasets in Federal Departments and get a personal commitment and permission, which is highly unlikely: no one has that authority. Open Data programs are a wonderful progress and medium which we will all work to support and enhance. The City of Ottawa has gone through extensive work to revise their Open Data licence so that it is modelled after OGL-Canada as it is stated in their FAQ. The Federal license might become a standard for Canada in the future. As for the dataset released yesterday: urban buildings, it was released after months of negotiations between the City and StatCan and an internal consultation at the City of Ottawa with lawyers experts in Open Data. They were all supportive of the concepts and principles behind Open data and this dataset was released precisely in support of this project which is a collaboration between municipalities, StatCan and OSM community. This is entirely for the benefit of OSM. Also, other Departments and Municipalities are joining the discussion and interest is rising for OSM. Open Data initiatives are going to be the main vehicle to provide data to the public. Bjenk ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
