Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James Mast]

Martijn, that intersection for as long as I can remember, has allowed the right 
turn @ the intersection and also via the slip lane.  The slip lane being closed 
when StreetView drove by was indeed temporary.  They were using it as a 
temporary staging area for construction vehicles for the bridge they were 
replacing on Pine Creek Road (well since completed) that was on the other side 
of the intersection.


-James


From: Martijn van Exel 
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 1:18:38 PM
To: James Mast
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org; OSM US
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of your 
example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see there is 
that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?) closed to 
traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the intersection? 
Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case, based on the info 
I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no restriction would be 
necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because of <> above.)

I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that 'when 
there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team is not 
adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I am looking 
for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also) as to traffic 
regulations that would make adding these restrictions not only valid but also a 
boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want us to add these if there is 
no confusion regarding correctness and there is added value to adding them.

I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Martijn

On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast 
> wrote:


Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.

Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this intersection 
[2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false information to 
the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right turns, there is 
overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying that you are allowed 
to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] would be completely 
legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to be added here.

This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in person, 
or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can see why 
Andrew was upset about this.

-James

[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
[2] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
[3] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457



From: Stewart C. Russell >
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> … the engine
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.

but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.

I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
belong in 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

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada Data

[Clifford Snow]

Let me tag onto Denis' suggestion to manually add the data. If you can get
people interested in OSM but sponsoring the update, then you'll have people
that will keep it current. For a town of 8,100 people, it would only take a
small handful to make a huge difference. And OSM is easy enough for the
average person to grasp.

I'be be happy to help setting up the Tasking Manager for your project.

+1 on the suggestion to use Carto or Mapbox to serve the tiles. You could
do it yourself with Geoserver [1], Boundless offers a easy installation
package. But the Mapbox or Carto offers much greater ease and you don't
have to run the server.

Clifford

[1] http://geoserver.org
[2] https://boundlessgeo.com/

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Denis Carriere 
wrote:

> For a village of only 8,100 people, adding the data manually + using
> Tasking Manager might be your best option.
>
> As for your custom web map, have you considered using CARTO
>  [0] or MapboxStudio 
> [1]?
>
> They are both great web OpenStreetMap based map solutions that can get you
> a web map within no time. Nothing against QGIS... but it's a little clunky
> trying to symbolize all your OSM & custom layers.
>
> Parcel data shouldn't be imported into OSM, however you can import that as
> a custom dataset into your custom Web map (which would look really slick!).
>
> Best of luck!
>
> [0]: https://carto.com/
> [1]: https://www.mapbox.com/studio/
> *~~*
> *Denis Carriere*
> *GIS Software & Systems Specialist*
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:22 PM, john whelan  wrote:
>
>> Treasury Board put a fair bit of effort into an Open Data licence.  The
>> City of Ottawa has adopted it with some minor changes.  At the municipal
>> level the license has been approved by OpenStreetMap's legal working group.
>>
>> I would suggest step one would be to have your data formally approved
>> with this license.
>>
>> Step two might be to have a look on the wiki about how other governments
>> are using OpenStreetMap.
>>
>> Stats Canada is doing a pilot project on buildings so they probably have
>> some analysis tools floating round if you need them.
>>
>> As James has said there is expertise lying around in bringing this data
>> into OpenStreetMap but there is some red tape involved which we can ease
>> you through.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 3 Apr 2017 12:33 pm, "Anatolijs Venovcevs" <
>> gist...@happyvalley-goosebay.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve been a longtime fan of Open Street Map but this is the first time I
>>> ever decided to help contribute to it. I am the GIS technologist for the
>>> Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada -
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/53.3085/-60.3463
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It’s a small, isolated community of approximately 8,100 people and I’m
>>> the only one with any GIS training and experience. As a result, I’m
>>> responsible for doing just about everything to assist the town in
>>> geospatial-related functions and have a very tight budget and not a lot of
>>> time to them. One of the things there’s been a real interest in is
>>> developing some sort of a basic interactive web map for the town’s public
>>> information (zoning, water and sewer lines, attractions for our tourist
>>> map, etc.). I’m planning on using QGIS plugin qgis2web to do that and use
>>> an OpenStreetMap background.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Before I can do that, OpenStreetMap data for the town needs to be
>>> updated. It looks to me approximately five years out of date and the town
>>> has been experiencing a major boom in the last few years. Currently, the
>>> town has possession of an updated street centerline network (digitized from
>>> 40 cm resolution orthorectified Worldview 2 satellite imagery) and an
>>> up-to-date civic number system with building footprints and parcels for
>>> recreational spaces and etc. coming later this year. I’d like to share them
>>> with the OSM community.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Before I do that, I’m looking for community buy-in for the project. I
>>> will start with manually adding the new streets that have been built over
>>> the last few years and correct any information within the town boundaries
>>> that no longer represents reality on the ground. If that’s ok with all of
>>> you, I’d like to make the OSM web mapping for my corner of Canada a little
>>> better.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Anatolijs Venovcevs*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 

Re: [Talk-ca] In progress: Clearances for Ontario and Toronto Open Data Licences

[James]

Is there documentation on this, you will have to create a wiki page on the
matter with links to the dataset so we can analyze it.

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Stewart Russell  wrote:

> Just so folks know, there are a few initiatives going on that could lead
> us to using Ontario and Toronto open data.
>
> I requested the LWG review the licences last month. This will take a few
> months to rattle through the system.
>
> Also last month on Open Data Day, there were useful contacts made at the
> Ontario Treasury Board. I will be back in touch with them once the LWG
> result comes through.
>
> Just last week, Brian Bancroft made a great contact at the city of
> Toronto, and discussions are just starting.
>
> So it's a start, at least ...
>
>  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] Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada Data

[john whelan]

Let's go back to my full statement:

The City of Ottawa has adopted it with some minor changes.  At the
municipal level the license has been approved by OpenStreetMap's legal
working group.

Stewart>This is not the case, unfortunately.

If the Ottawa license is used with a change of municipal name then I do not
see what the problem is.  Ontario and Toronto licenses are different and
were derived from a different source to my understanding.  I accept these
may not be compatible with OSM and before their use they need to be
verified.  I think Jamie has already raised the issue that if Open Data is
used the license might be an issue.

Cheerio John

On 3 April 2017 at 17:22, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:

> On 2017-04-03 01:22 PM, john whelan wrote:
> > … At the municipal level the license has been approved by
> > OpenStreetMap's legal working group.
>
> This is not the case, unfortunately. This from personal communication
> from Simon Poole of the OSM Foundation's legal team from March 2017:
>
> >> [The Ontario and Toronto licences] illustrate why we didn't want to
> >> make a blanket statement wrt OGL licence variants in CA and why in
> >> general the situation is a bit of a mess.
>
> All individual OGL variants need approval from the legal working group.
>
> So perhaps the OGL licensing route wouldn't be the best route: a lot of
> bureaucracy on the Happy Valley-Goose Bay side, and then a several month
> wait for the LWG to review. I don't think Anatolijs would want that.
>
> Given the size of the town and the severe budget constraints, you might
> have more luck suggesting to the town that allowing the road data to be
> imported to OSM would be a real value proposition. There are permission
> request letters here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission . The
> town's response to that would be an important thing to include in the
> import wiki page.
>
> There's a (slim) possibility that the town's data, being derived from
> Worldview 2 data, may not able to be licensed under an open licence. Is
> there anything in the data agreement between the town and Worldview
> regarding data rights?
>
> As long as the town is amenable and the licence isn't horrible, the OSM
> import process described here isn't too onerous:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
> There have been several notes to the OSM Imports list¹ from municipal
> GIS techs who want to do the same as you, and as long as there's a wiki
> page and permission from the town granted, it goes ahead smoothly.
>
> (and even if everything goes sideways, there's a lot you can do with a
> vehicle and a GPS that sidesteps licensing completely …)
>
> Really pleased that you want to do this, Anatolijs!
>
> Best Wishes,
>  Stewart
>
>
> ---
> ¹: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
> >
> > On 3 Apr 2017 12:33 pm, "Anatolijs Venovcevs"
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > I’ve been a longtime fan of Open Street Map but this is the first
> > time I ever decided to help contribute to it. I am the GIS
> > technologist for the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Newfoundland
> > and Labrador, Canada -
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/53.3085/-60.3463
> > 
> >
> > 
> >
> > It’s a small, isolated community of approximately 8,100 people and
> > I’m the only one with any GIS training and experience. As a result,
> > I’m responsible for doing just about everything to assist the town
> > in geospatial-related functions and have a very tight budget and not
> > a lot of time to them. One of the things there’s been a real
> > interest in is developing some sort of a basic interactive web map
> > for the town’s public information (zoning, water and sewer lines,
> > attractions for our tourist map, etc.). I’m planning on using QGIS
> > plugin qgis2web to do that and use an OpenStreetMap background.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Before I can do that, OpenStreetMap data for the town needs to be
> > updated. It looks to me approximately five years out of date and the
> >  town has been experiencing a major boom in the last few years.
> > Currently, the town has possession of an updated street centerline
> > network (digitized from 40 cm resolution orthorectified Worldview 2
> > satellite imagery) and an up-to-date civic number system with
> > building footprints and parcels for recreational spaces and etc.
> > coming later this year. I’d like to share them with the OSM
> > community.
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > Before I do that, I’m looking for community buy-in for the project.
> > I will start with manually adding the new streets that have been
> > built over the last few years and correct any information within the
> > town boundaries that no longer represents reality on the ground. If
> > that’s ok with all of you, I’d like to make the OSM web 

[Talk-ca] In progress: Clearances for Ontario and Toronto Open Data Licences

[Stewart Russell]

Just so folks know, there are a few initiatives going on that could lead us
to using Ontario and Toronto open data.

I requested the LWG review the licences last month. This will take a few
months to rattle through the system.

Also last month on Open Data Day, there were useful contacts made at the
Ontario Treasury Board. I will be back in touch with them once the LWG
result comes through.

Just last week, Brian Bancroft made a great contact at the city of Toronto,
and discussions are just starting.

So it's a start, at least ...

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada Data

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-04-03 04:34 PM, Denis Carriere wrote:
> 
> They are both great web OpenStreetMap based map solutions that can get
> you a web map within no time. Nothing against QGIS... but it's a little
> clunky trying to symbolize all your OSM & custom layers.

Great suggestions on Carto and Mapbox, but you can't beat the price of
qgis2web. If you have your GIS project already in QGIS, there's also
nothing quicker for making simple slippy maps.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada Data

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-04-03 01:22 PM, john whelan wrote:
> … At the municipal level the license has been approved by 
> OpenStreetMap's legal working group.

This is not the case, unfortunately. This from personal communication
from Simon Poole of the OSM Foundation's legal team from March 2017:

>> [The Ontario and Toronto licences] illustrate why we didn't want to
>> make a blanket statement wrt OGL licence variants in CA and why in
>> general the situation is a bit of a mess.

All individual OGL variants need approval from the legal working group.

So perhaps the OGL licensing route wouldn't be the best route: a lot of
bureaucracy on the Happy Valley-Goose Bay side, and then a several month
wait for the LWG to review. I don't think Anatolijs would want that.

Given the size of the town and the severe budget constraints, you might
have more luck suggesting to the town that allowing the road data to be
imported to OSM would be a real value proposition. There are permission
request letters here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission . The
town's response to that would be an important thing to include in the
import wiki page.

There's a (slim) possibility that the town's data, being derived from
Worldview 2 data, may not able to be licensed under an open licence. Is
there anything in the data agreement between the town and Worldview
regarding data rights?

As long as the town is amenable and the licence isn't horrible, the OSM
import process described here isn't too onerous:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
There have been several notes to the OSM Imports list¹ from municipal
GIS techs who want to do the same as you, and as long as there's a wiki
page and permission from the town granted, it goes ahead smoothly.

(and even if everything goes sideways, there's a lot you can do with a
vehicle and a GPS that sidesteps licensing completely …)

Really pleased that you want to do this, Anatolijs!

Best Wishes,
 Stewart


---
¹: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports

> 
> On 3 Apr 2017 12:33 pm, "Anatolijs Venovcevs" 
>  > wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> __ __
> 
> I’ve been a longtime fan of Open Street Map but this is the first 
> time I ever decided to help contribute to it. I am the GIS 
> technologist for the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Newfoundland 
> and Labrador, Canada - 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/53.3085/-60.3463 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a small, isolated community of approximately 8,100 people and 
> I’m the only one with any GIS training and experience. As a result, 
> I’m responsible for doing just about everything to assist the town
> in geospatial-related functions and have a very tight budget and not
> a lot of time to them. One of the things there’s been a real
> interest in is developing some sort of a basic interactive web map
> for the town’s public information (zoning, water and sewer lines,
> attractions for our tourist map, etc.). I’m planning on using QGIS
> plugin qgis2web to do that and use an OpenStreetMap background.
> 
> 
> 
> Before I can do that, OpenStreetMap data for the town needs to be 
> updated. It looks to me approximately five years out of date and the
>  town has been experiencing a major boom in the last few years. 
> Currently, the town has possession of an updated street centerline 
> network (digitized from 40 cm resolution orthorectified Worldview 2 
> satellite imagery) and an up-to-date civic number system with 
> building footprints and parcels for recreational spaces and etc. 
> coming later this year. I’d like to share them with the OSM 
> community.
> 
> __ __
> 
> Before I do that, I’m looking for community buy-in for the project.
> I will start with manually adding the new streets that have been
> built over the last few years and correct any information within the
> town boundaries that no longer represents reality on the ground. If
> that’s ok with all of you, I’d like to make the OSM web mapping for
> my corner of Canada a little better.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> __ __
> 
> *Anatolijs Venovcevs* 
> 
> __ __
> 
> 
> ___ 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] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James]

I've made it easier for everyone I sent an email to the local police
station about the legalities of turning right at the light vs taking the
ramp/turning lane. Hopefully they will answer me.

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of
> your example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see
> there is that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?)
> closed to traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the
> intersection? Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case,
> based on the info I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no
> restriction would be necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because
> of <> above.)
>
> I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that
> 'when there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team
> is not adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I
> am looking for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also)
> as to traffic regulations that would make adding these restrictions not
> only valid but also a boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want
> us to add these if there is no confusion regarding correctness and there is
> added value to adding them.
>
> I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there
> and I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast  wrote:
>
> Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that
> it still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might
> be if you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.
>
> Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this
> intersection [2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false
> information to the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right
> turns, there is overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying
> that you are allowed to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So,
> [3] would be completely legal and would be prevented if a false relation
> were to be added here.
>
> This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in
> person, or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can
> see why Andrew was upset about this.
>
> -James
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_
> car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.
> 66520/-111.86552
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_
> car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#
> map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
> [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_
> car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#
> map=19/40.58648/-80.04457
>
> --
> *From:* Stewart C. Russell 
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
> *To:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>
> On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > … the engine
> > may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> > because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> > these restrictions to be explicit in the data.
>
> but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
> Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
> there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.
>
> I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
> belong in 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
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada Data

[john whelan]

Treasury Board put a fair bit of effort into an Open Data licence.  The
City of Ottawa has adopted it with some minor changes.  At the municipal
level the license has been approved by OpenStreetMap's legal working group.

I would suggest step one would be to have your data formally approved with
this license.

Step two might be to have a look on the wiki about how other governments
are using OpenStreetMap.

Stats Canada is doing a pilot project on buildings so they probably have
some analysis tools floating round if you need them.

As James has said there is expertise lying around in bringing this data
into OpenStreetMap but there is some red tape involved which we can ease
you through.

Cheerio John

On 3 Apr 2017 12:33 pm, "Anatolijs Venovcevs" <
gist...@happyvalley-goosebay.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
>
>
> I’ve been a longtime fan of Open Street Map but this is the first time I
> ever decided to help contribute to it. I am the GIS technologist for the
> Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada -
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/53.3085/-60.3463
>
>
>
> It’s a small, isolated community of approximately 8,100 people and I’m the
> only one with any GIS training and experience. As a result, I’m responsible
> for doing just about everything to assist the town in geospatial-related
> functions and have a very tight budget and not a lot of time to them. One
> of the things there’s been a real interest in is developing some sort of a
> basic interactive web map for the town’s public information (zoning, water
> and sewer lines, attractions for our tourist map, etc.). I’m planning on
> using QGIS plugin qgis2web to do that and use an OpenStreetMap background.
>
>
>
> Before I can do that, OpenStreetMap data for the town needs to be updated.
> It looks to me approximately five years out of date and the town has been
> experiencing a major boom in the last few years. Currently, the town has
> possession of an updated street centerline network (digitized from 40 cm
> resolution orthorectified Worldview 2 satellite imagery) and an up-to-date
> civic number system with building footprints and parcels for recreational
> spaces and etc. coming later this year. I’d like to share them with the OSM
> community.
>
>
>
> Before I do that, I’m looking for community buy-in for the project. I will
> start with manually adding the new streets that have been built over the
> last few years and correct any information within the town boundaries that
> no longer represents reality on the ground. If that’s ok with all of you,
> I’d like to make the OSM web mapping for my corner of Canada a little
> better.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> *Anatolijs Venovcevs*
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Martijn van Exel]

James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of your 
example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see there is 
that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?) closed to 
traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the intersection? 
Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case, based on the info 
I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no restriction would be 
necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because of <> above.)

I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that 'when 
there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team is not 
adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I am looking 
for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also) as to traffic 
regulations that would make adding these restrictions not only valid but also a 
boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want us to add these if there is 
no confusion regarding correctness and there is added value to adding them.

I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Martijn

> On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast  wrote:
> 
> Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
> still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
> you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.
> 
> Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this 
> intersection [2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false 
> information to the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right 
> turns, there is overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying 
> that you are allowed to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] 
> would be completely legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to 
> be added here.
> 
> This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in 
> person, or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can 
> see why Andrew was upset about this.
> 
> -James
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
>  
> 
> [2] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
>  
> 
> [3] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457
>  
> 
> From: Stewart C. Russell 
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>  
> On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > … the engine
> > may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> > because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> > these restrictions to be explicit in the data.
> 
> but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
> Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
> there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.
> 
> I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
> belong in 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 
> 
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada Data

[James]

As long as the license of the data is compatible with the ODbL, I'd love to
help out.

I can help you set up the project on the osmcanada tasking manager :
tasks.osmcanada.ca so many people could collaborate on this effort.

On Apr 3, 2017 12:33 PM, "Anatolijs Venovcevs" <
gist...@happyvalley-goosebay.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
>
>
> I’ve been a longtime fan of Open Street Map but this is the first time I
> ever decided to help contribute to it. I am the GIS technologist for the
> Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada -
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/53.3085/-60.3463
>
>
>
> It’s a small, isolated community of approximately 8,100 people and I’m the
> only one with any GIS training and experience. As a result, I’m responsible
> for doing just about everything to assist the town in geospatial-related
> functions and have a very tight budget and not a lot of time to them. One
> of the things there’s been a real interest in is developing some sort of a
> basic interactive web map for the town’s public information (zoning, water
> and sewer lines, attractions for our tourist map, etc.). I’m planning on
> using QGIS plugin qgis2web to do that and use an OpenStreetMap background.
>
>
>
> Before I can do that, OpenStreetMap data for the town needs to be updated.
> It looks to me approximately five years out of date and the town has been
> experiencing a major boom in the last few years. Currently, the town has
> possession of an updated street centerline network (digitized from 40 cm
> resolution orthorectified Worldview 2 satellite imagery) and an up-to-date
> civic number system with building footprints and parcels for recreational
> spaces and etc. coming later this year. I’d like to share them with the OSM
> community.
>
>
>
> Before I do that, I’m looking for community buy-in for the project. I will
> start with manually adding the new streets that have been built over the
> last few years and correct any information within the town boundaries that
> no longer represents reality on the ground. If that’s ok with all of you,
> I’d like to make the OSM web mapping for my corner of Canada a little
> better.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> *Anatolijs Venovcevs*
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada Data

[Anatolijs Venovcevs]

Hello everyone,

 

I've been a longtime fan of Open Street Map but this is the first time I
ever decided to help contribute to it. I am the GIS technologist for the
Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada -

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/53.3085/-60.3463

 

It's a small, isolated community of approximately 8,100 people and I'm the
only one with any GIS training and experience. As a result, I'm responsible
for doing just about everything to assist the town in geospatial-related
functions and have a very tight budget and not a lot of time to them. One of
the things there's been a real interest in is developing some sort of a
basic interactive web map for the town's public information (zoning, water
and sewer lines, attractions for our tourist map, etc.). I'm planning on
using QGIS plugin qgis2web to do that and use an OpenStreetMap background.

 

Before I can do that, OpenStreetMap data for the town needs to be updated.
It looks to me approximately five years out of date and the town has been
experiencing a major boom in the last few years. Currently, the town has
possession of an updated street centerline network (digitized from 40 cm
resolution orthorectified Worldview 2 satellite imagery) and an up-to-date
civic number system with building footprints and parcels for recreational
spaces and etc. coming later this year. I'd like to share them with the OSM
community.

 

Before I do that, I'm looking for community buy-in for the project. I will
start with manually adding the new streets that have been built over the
last few years and correct any information within the town boundaries that
no longer represents reality on the ground. If that's ok with all of you,
I'd like to make the OSM web mapping for my corner of Canada a little
better.

 

Thank you,

 

Anatolijs Venovcevs 

 

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

[Talk-ca] Route verte 1 en 4 exemplaires

[Alouette955]

Bonjour,

Voici un extrait d’un message que j’ai envoyé au contributeur MonReseauVelo:

  Bonjour,

  Je m'aperçois que la relation Route verte 1 originale (415116) n'existe 
plus mais que les portions de ma région (Laval)
  se retrouvent dans 4 relations Route verte 1 dont les numéros sont 
7073216, 7073222, 7073230 et 7073389.

  Vous êtes le créateur récent de la première, Je me doute donc que vous 
travaillez activement sur ce(s) relation(s).

  Pouvez-vous expliquer votre processus et la raison d'être de cette 
situation?

Il y a certainement une explication mais, en attente de sa réponse attention 
aux modifications à la RV1 ... et peut-être le reste du réseau RV.

Salutations,

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James Mast]

Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.

Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this intersection 
[2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false information to 
the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right turns, there is 
overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying that you are allowed 
to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] would be completely 
legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to be added here.

This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in person, 
or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can see why 
Andrew was upset about this.

-James

[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
[2] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
[3] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457



From: Stewart C. Russell 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> … the engine
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.

but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.

I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
belong in 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