Re: [Talk-ca] importing data requiring attribution

[Brent Fraser]

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 
 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 > 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
). Their license
> (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 
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] importing data requiring attribution

[Alan Richards]

For reference, here's the full email and response I got, in case it helps
others with similar requests:

Hi,
> I tried sending this through the feedback form on the Open Data site, but
> it was too long for the form and my shorter inquiry was never responded to.
> Given the upcoming HackOurCity and InnovationWeek, I'm hoping that this can
> be passed along to the appropriate people.
> Dear New West Open Data,
> Thank you for making open data available to the public.
> I am a resident of New Westminster, but also a contributor to the
> OpenStreetMap project [1], a collaborative open project to create a global
> geodata set freely usable by anyone [2].
> We respect the IP rights of others and I write to ask if we can use your
> data. OpenStreetMap (OSM) uses the ODbL license [3]. The OGL-City of New
> Westminster is based upon the OGL-BC, which in turn is based upon the
> OGL-CA. As I understand, the OGL-CA has been deemed compatible with the
> ODbL, but the OGL-BC has slightly modified wording introducing an exemption
> for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (B.C.). Given
> the goals of most municipal Open Data projects, I imagine you would happy
> for the data to be used by OSM, but we would ask for a statement clearing
> the use.
> At the most simple, I would seek a statement like this:
> "Data available in the Orthophotography, Landuse, Address, Building
> Footprints, and Park Benches datasets location of the City of New
> Westminster's Open Data site under the following location:
> http://opendata.newwestcity.ca/datasets is released in accordance with
> the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of British
> Columbia."
> Such a statement was provided by the City of Vancouver for their own
> datasets for inclusion in OSM.
> An alternative statement that would work in a more general sense is the
> following:
> "The City of New Westminster has no objections to geodata derived in part
> from the Orthophotography, Landuse, Address, Building Footprints, and Park
> Benches datasets being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata
> database and released under a free and open license".
> Alternatively, releasing the datasets under a Public Domain, CC0, PDDL, or
> ODbL license would satisfy our license requirements.
> I also ask that whatever statement you are prepared to make can be made
> public for information purposes.
> Below is a fact sheet. If you would like any more information, I will do
> my best to help or can ask our project's License Working Group to get in
> touch with you. I've also included a couple links to discussion on license
> compatibility in Nanaimo and Vancouver.
> Regards, Alan Richards (alarobric)
> Fact Sheet
> [1] The OpenStreetMap project currently has over 750,000 registered
> contributors worldwide. Our main website is http://www.openstreetmap.org
> [2] We are mandated to make our geodata available in perpetuity under a
> free and open licence. We are not allowed to use a commercial license, but
> commercial organisations are allowed to use our data under similar terms.
> [3] Our data is currently published under the Open Database License 1.0,
> http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
> [4] Most of our geodata is contributed by individuals. However, we are
> very grateful when able to incorporate or derive from other geo-data datasets
> where license terms are compatible.
> [5] We formally attribute all such sources at http://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Attribution, using any specific wording if you request. We also
> try to provide a link to this page with any extract of data from our
> database. However, for reasons of practicality, we do not require end-users
> to repeat such attribution since it runs into hundreds.
> [6] We also keep a public track of third party data use at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue and usually have a
> project page for each dataset, describing how we use it and whether there
> are any license restrictions to be aware of.
> [7] If you have any specific legal questions, the OpenStreetMap
> Foundation's License Working Group can be reached at
> le...@osmfoundation.org and will be glad to help.
> [8] Nanaimo licensing discussion: https://lists.
> openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-December/005974.html
> [9] Vancouver discussion: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/
> talk-ca/2014-February/006037.html




 Dear Mr. Richards,
> Thank you for your very clear email.  We really want to facilitate your
> and other open data users work.  We have therefore added a statement
> above our license that all data sets in the City’s open data collection
> are released in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection
> of Privacy Act of BC.  A link to the page is below.
> http://opendata.newwestcity.ca/licence
>
> Please let me know if you have further concerns or requests for data sets.
>
> Yours,
>
> *Jacque Killawee*  |  Records and Information Administrator
> *T* 

Re: [Talk-ca] importing data requiring attribution

[Alan Richards]

>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 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  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).  Their license
> > (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
> 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] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 109, Issue 13

[Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)]

Kevin and Denis, and others, 

Thank you all for the amazing answers to my question. 

It all makes sense. Later we could talk about writing up an approach to get 
there iteratively, I think we all agree it is needed at some point.


Bjenk

-Original Message-
From: talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org] 
Sent: March-07-17 1:52 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 109, Issue 13

Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://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: Municipal boundaries (kevinfarrugia)
   2. Re: Municipal boundaries (Denis Carriere)
   3. Re: Municipal boundaries (Adam Martin)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 13:38:00 -0500
From: kevinfarrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com>
To: "J.P. Kirby" <webmas...@the506.com>, James <james2...@gmail.com>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
Message-ID: <vdtwscp5e6030w9hxadr2rqj.1488911880...@email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally (at 
least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries. 
In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and how 
boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are definitely 
important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need for extremely 
redundant addr tags that are used for cities.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: "J.P. Kirby" <webmas...@the506.com> 
Date: 2017-03-07  1:21 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: James <james2...@gmail.com> Cc: 
Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] 
Municipal boundaries 
And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for instance 
they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at all and are 
just StatsCan creations.
I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added into 
OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.

Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually there's a 
sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but they have been 
rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in reality

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:

>

> … Any more thoughts?



If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather

than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they

don't belong in OSM.



 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:

   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have

    invented.

   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without

    permission.

   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for

    themselves if your data is correct.

   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to

    others how to re-use the data



  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world

  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”



 — How We Map <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map>



Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.



 Stewart
------ next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20170307/68f24873/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 13:50:03 -0500
From: Denis Carriere <carriere.de...@gmail.com>
To: kevinfarrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
Message-ID:
<cam4+tg2lftfu9qs_m7i0kruq8rwrd_t4q_2s_mkc69xfscl...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

+1 Kevin again :)

Boundaries are a MUST if ever you want better geocoding.

We just need to deconflict the boundaries that are different from StatsCan
& the local municipalities (these boundaries should be "authoritative" if
they exist).

Remember, not all townships have a full GIS team working for them, there's
going to be many areas in Can

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Denis Carriere]

+1 Kevin again :)

Boundaries are a MUST if ever you want better geocoding.

We just need to deconflict the boundaries that are different from StatsCan
& the local municipalities (these boundaries should be "authoritative" if
they exist).

Remember, not all townships have a full GIS team working for them, there's
going to be many areas in Canada that StatsCan does have the "best" data.

*~~*
*Denis Carriere*
*GIS Software & Systems Specialist*

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM, kevinfarrugia 
wrote:

> Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally
> (at least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries.
>
> In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and
> how boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are
> definitely important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need
> for extremely redundant addr tags that are used for cities.
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>
>  Original message 
> From: "J.P. Kirby" 
> Date: 2017-03-07 1:21 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: James 
> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>
> And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for
> instance they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at
> all and are just StatsCan creations.
>
> I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added
> into OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James  wrote:
>
> CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually
> there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but
> they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in
> reality
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell 
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
>> >
>> > … Any more thoughts?
>>
>> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
>> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
>> don't belong in OSM.
>>
>>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>>1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
>> invented.
>>2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
>> permission.
>>3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
>> themselves if your data is correct.
>>4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
>> others how to re-use the data
>>
>>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>>
>>  — How We Map 
>>
>> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>>
>>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> 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] Municipal boundaries

[kevinfarrugia]

Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally (at 
least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries. 
In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and how 
boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are definitely 
important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need for extremely 
redundant addr tags that are used for cities.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: "J.P. Kirby"  
Date: 2017-03-07  1:21 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: James  Cc: 
Talk-CA OpenStreetMap  Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] 
Municipal boundaries 
And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for instance 
they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at all and are 
just StatsCan creations.
I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added into 
OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.

Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James  wrote:

CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually there's a 
sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but they have been 
rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in reality

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:

>

> … Any more thoughts?



If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather

than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they

don't belong in OSM.



 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:

   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have

    invented.

   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without

    permission.

   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for

    themselves if your data is correct.

   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to

    others how to re-use the data



  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world

  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”



 — How We Map 



Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.



 Stewart___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

Well noted. Maybe we could start a project out of it a later time with everyone 
in this thread. It will require research and preparation.

B

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Denis Carriere  wrote:
> 
> I just want to re-enforce the comment that Kevin Farrugia made.
> 
> Boundaries are one of the most complex features to add in OpenStreetMap. They 
> usually consist of relations that share borders with roads/rivers/other 
> boundaries.
> 
> If ever there is an import of boundaries, the users doing the import have to 
> be VERY experienced with using relations and understand how they work.
> 
> This goes way beyond adding simple building footprints :)
> 
> I'm sure this can be accomplished with the group of people who replied to 
> this thread.
> 
> Documentation is key for this type of work.
> 
> ~~
> Denis Carriere
> GIS Software & Systems Specialist
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen  
>> wrote:
>> James, it looks to me those differences are the result of a simplification 
>> applied on the processing side.
>> 
>> And I also agree that good enough is usually more problems down the road. We 
>> should adopt a standard. The only one I know of for the country is the SGC 
>> and Paul is pointing out to an example of how Provinces have defined 
>> boundaries.
>> 
>> We probably should look at a standard though if we wish to produce OSM 
>> analysis that is consistent and reproducible. The problem I foresee with the 
>> use of different and variable boundaries is that it will make OSM data use 
>> inconsistent and not accurate.
>> 
>> What I understand form our discussion is that I should do more research on 
>> what provinces are using and document this before doing anything and report 
>> here. Thanks everyone for the feedback! Any more thoughts?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:11 AM, James  wrote:
>>> Quebec's Open Data portal just points to the city portals which each have 
>>> their own license(usually CC-BY)
>>> 
>>> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/
>>> 
 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, James  wrote:
 We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we want 
 better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.
 
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey  
> wrote:
> Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of 
> complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government, 
> though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes 
> disagree with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if 
> available).
> 
> Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will 
> attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is 
> "good enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality, 
> provincial data will always be preferable.
> 
> e.g. 
> https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc
> 
> P
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:
>> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open 
>> data portal:
>> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>> 
>> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
>>>  wrote:
>>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions 
>>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal 
>>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  
>>> http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/subjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>> 
>>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is 
>>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the 
>>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When 
>>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is 
>>> it referring to?
>>> 
>>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the 
>>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>> 
 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
 Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a 
 generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
 
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
>  wrote:
> Bjenk,
> 
>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching 
> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with 
> the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our 
> county boundaries included 

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[J.P. Kirby]

And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for instance 
they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at all and are 
just StatsCan creations.

I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added into 
OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James  wrote:
> 
> CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually there's 
> a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but they have 
> been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in reality
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
>> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
>> >
>> > … Any more thoughts?
>> 
>> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
>> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
>> don't belong in OSM.
>> 
>>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>>1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
>> invented.
>>2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
>> permission.
>>3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
>> themselves if your data is correct.
>>4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
>> others how to re-use the data
>> 
>>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>> 
>>  — How We Map 
>> 
>> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>> 
>>  Stewart
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[kevinfarrugia]

Hey Stewart,
CSDs are legal boundaries - I.e. the legal boundary of a lower tier 
municipality.
CSD = city/town/township

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: "Stewart C. Russell"  
Date: 2017-03-07  1:05 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: 
Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries 
On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> 
> … Any more thoughts?

If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
don't belong in OSM.

 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
    invented.
   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
    permission.
   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
    themselves if your data is correct.
   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
    others how to re-use the data

  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”

 — How We Map 

Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.

 Stewart


___
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] Municipal boundaries

[James]

CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually
there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but
they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in
reality

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:

> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> >
> > … Any more thoughts?
>
> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
> don't belong in OSM.
>
>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
> invented.
>2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
> permission.
>3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
> themselves if your data is correct.
>4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
> others how to re-use the data
>
>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>
>  — How We Map 
>
> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>
>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> 
> … Any more thoughts?

If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
don't belong in OSM.

 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
invented.
   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
permission.
   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
themselves if your data is correct.
   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
others how to re-use the data

  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”

 — How We Map 

Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.

 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Denis Carriere]

I just want to re-enforce the comment that Kevin Farrugia made.

Boundaries are one of the most complex features to add in OpenStreetMap.
They usually consist of relations that share borders with
roads/rivers/other boundaries.

If ever there is an import of boundaries, the users doing the import have
to be VERY experienced with using relations and understand how they work.

This goes way beyond adding simple building footprints :)

I'm sure this can be accomplished with the group of people who replied to
this thread.

Documentation is key for this type of work.

*~~*
*Denis Carriere*
*GIS Software & Systems Specialist*

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
wrote:

> James, it looks to me those differences are the result of a simplification
> applied on the processing side.
>
> And I also agree that good enough is usually more problems down the road.
> We should adopt a standard. The only one I know of for the country is the
> SGC and Paul is pointing out to an example of how Provinces have defined
> boundaries.
>
> We probably should look at a standard though if we wish to produce OSM
> analysis that is consistent and reproducible. The problem I foresee with
> the use of different and variable boundaries is that it will make OSM data
> use inconsistent and not accurate.
>
> What I understand form our discussion is that I should do more research on
> what provinces are using and document this before doing anything and report
> here. Thanks everyone for the feedback! Any more thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:11 AM, James  wrote:
>
>> Quebec's Open Data portal just points to the city portals which each have
>> their own license(usually CC-BY)
>>
>> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, James  wrote:
>>
>>> We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we
>>> want better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source
 of complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial
 government, though each municipality will generally know theirs (and
 sometimes disagree with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial
 file if available).

 Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
 attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
 enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
 provincial data will always be preferable.

 e.g. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities
 -legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc

 P


 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:

> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their
> open data portal:
> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>
> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen <
> bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census
>> Divisions are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are 
>> municipal
>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>
>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or
>> is not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>> referring to?
>>
>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>>
>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
>>> berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Bjenk,

   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not
 matching with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of 
 was
 with the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our 
 county
 boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a 
 municipality
 from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there 
 is
 not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries 
 can be
 downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD 
 data.

 Bernie.

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

James, it looks to me those differences are the result of a simplification
applied on the processing side.

And I also agree that good enough is usually more problems down the road.
We should adopt a standard. The only one I know of for the country is the
SGC and Paul is pointing out to an example of how Provinces have defined
boundaries.

We probably should look at a standard though if we wish to produce OSM
analysis that is consistent and reproducible. The problem I foresee with
the use of different and variable boundaries is that it will make OSM data
use inconsistent and not accurate.

What I understand form our discussion is that I should do more research on
what provinces are using and document this before doing anything and report
here. Thanks everyone for the feedback! Any more thoughts?





On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:11 AM, James  wrote:

> Quebec's Open Data portal just points to the city portals which each have
> their own license(usually CC-BY)
>
> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, James  wrote:
>
>> We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we want
>> better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
>>> complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
>>> though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
>>> with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).
>>>
>>> Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
>>> attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
>>> enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
>>> provincial data will always be preferable.
>>>
>>> e.g. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities
>>> -legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:
>>>
 In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their
 open data portal:
 http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png

 The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds

 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen <
 bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census
> Divisions are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are 
> municipal
> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>
> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
> referring to?
>
> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>
>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
>> berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bjenk,
>>>
>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not
>>> matching with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was
>>> with the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our 
>>> county
>>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a 
>>> municipality
>>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there 
>>> is
>>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries 
>>> can be
>>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>>
>>> Bernie.
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
>>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
>>> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>>
>>> Bjenk
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

Quebec's Open Data portal just points to the city portals which each have
their own license(usually CC-BY)

https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, James  wrote:

> We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we want
> better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey 
> wrote:
>
>> Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
>> complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
>> though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
>> with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).
>>
>> Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
>> attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
>> enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
>> provincial data will always be preferable.
>>
>> e.g. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities
>> -legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:
>>
>>> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
>>> data portal:
>>> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>>>
>>> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen >> > wrote:
>>>
 Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
 are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
 boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
 ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro

 Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
 not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
 CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
 referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
 referring to?

 Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
 classification used if its not the CSDs.

 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:

> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
> berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bjenk,
>>
>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can 
>> be
>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>
>> Bernie.
>>
>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
>> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>
>> Bjenk
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we want
better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey 
wrote:

> Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
> complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
> though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
> with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).
>
> Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
> attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
> enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
> provincial data will always be preferable.
>
> e.g. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities-legally-
> defined-administrative-areas-of-bc
>
> P
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:
>
>> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
>> data portal:
>> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>>
>> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
>>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
>>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>>
>>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
>>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>>> referring to?
>>>
>>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>>>
 Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
 generalization of an area vs the actual city limits

 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
 berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bjenk,
>
>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can 
> be
> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>
> Bernie.
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>
> Hello,
>
> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>
> Bjenk
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


 --
 外に遊びに行こう！

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Paul Ramsey]

Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).

Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
provincial data will always be preferable.

e.g.
https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc

P


On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:

> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
> data portal:
> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>
> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
> wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>
>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>> referring to?
>>
>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>>
>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors >> > wrote:
>>>
 Bjenk,

   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
 with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
 county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
 boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
 from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
 not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
 downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.

 Bernie.

 Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
 *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
 *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
 *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

 Hello,

 Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
 seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
 start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
 important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.

 Bjenk


 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>
> ___
> 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] Municipal boundaries

[Begin Daniel]

Bjenk, I was on the same impression that CSD did (used to) not always match 
municipal limits because of their objective (census) since in some case it 
would not make sense to do so for statistical purpose…

Daniel

From: Bjenk Ellefsen [mailto:bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 March, 2017 09:20
To: James
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions are 
higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal boundaries (in 
OSM, level 8).  
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/subjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is not in 
the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the CSDs. At least, 
as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When referring to actual city 
limits, which geographical classification is it referring to?
Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the classification 
used if its not the CSDs.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James 
> wrote:
Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a generalization 
of an area vs the actual city limits

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
> wrote:
Bjenk,

  In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching with our 
administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the county 
boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county boundaries included 
some significant deviations to prevent a municipality from being bisected by a 
county boundary. Please be careful that there is not a similar issue with the 
CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be downloaded from the GeoNB Data 
Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.

Bernie.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
From: Bjenk Ellefsen
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries


Hello,
Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen that 
many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start adding some 
boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to make 
extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
Bjenk


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca



--
外に遊びに行こう！

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

Sorry the image didnt copy properly:
http://i.imgur.com/QwdQDzS.png

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:31 AM, James  wrote:

> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
> data portal:
> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>
> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
> wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>
>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>> referring to?
>>
>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>>
>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors >> > wrote:
>>>
 Bjenk,

   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
 with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
 county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
 boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
 from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
 not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
 downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.

 Bernie.

 Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
 *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
 *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
 *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

 Hello,

 Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
 seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
 start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
 important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.

 Bjenk


 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
data portal:
http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png

The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
wrote:

> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/
> subjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>
> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is not
> in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the CSDs. At
> least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When referring to
> actual city limits, which geographical classification is it referring to?
>
> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>
>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bjenk,
>>>
>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
>>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>>
>>> Bernie.
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
>>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
>>> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>>
>>> Bjenk
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions are
higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal boundaries
(in OSM, level 8).
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/subjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro

Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is not
in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the CSDs. At
least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When referring to
actual city limits, which geographical classification is it referring to?

Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
classification used if its not the CSDs.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:

> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
> wrote:
>
>> Bjenk,
>>
>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>
>> Bernie.
>>
>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
>> that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
>> adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
>> make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>
>> Bjenk
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Kevin Farrugia]

Morning Bjenk,

Just a heads up - municipal boundaries are best of they aren't just
straight up imported because they're usually done as relations.  For
example, we generally add roads into the boundary relationship rather than
overlapping boundary and roads.  Here's one I did before:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4198907 as well as the municipalities
within it (CSD).

For those that don't know the StatsCan lexicon, in Ontario they relate as:
-Census Subdivision (CSD) is a single tier municipality or lower tier
municipality.
-Census Division (CD) is a upper tier municipality (county, region,
district) or a single tier municipality.

Hope that helps out,
Kevin


On Mar 7, 2017 8:51 AM, "Bjenk Ellefsen"  wrote:

Hello,

Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.

Bjenk

___
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] Municipal boundaries

[James]

Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
generalization of an area vs the actual city limits

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
wrote:

> Bjenk,
>
>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching with
> our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the county
> boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county boundaries
> included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality from being
> bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is not a
> similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>
> Bernie.
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>
> Hello,
>
> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
> that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
> adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
> make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>
> Bjenk
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Bernie Connors]

  Bjenk,      In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data. Bernie. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.From: Bjenk EllefsenSent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AMTo: talk-ca@openstreetmap.orgSubject: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundariesHello, Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.Bjenk


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

Depends what boundaries you are talking about: City limits(admin_level=8)
there are a few(usually main cities) as for neighbourhoods (admin_level=9)
they are a rarity.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
> that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
> adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
> make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>
> Bjenk
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

Hello,

Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.

Bjenk
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca