Re: [Talk-ca] Saints in street names in Ontario

[john whelan]

Go back to Ottawa and from the discussion we had there in Ontario it is the
municipality that is the authority.

>From memory years ago when OSM was mapped by cyclists taking photos of
street names what was on the sign post was deemed correct.

Unfortunately locally one street had three different signs that all
differed slightly.

Cheerio John

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 4:19 PM Tristan Anderson, 
wrote:

> When in doubt, ask.
>
> I posed this question to three Ontario municipalities.  Red Lake has told
> me either are acceptable, as has Amherstburg.  However, this is the
> response I got after emailing 3...@toronto.ca
>
> Dear Tristan:
>
> Street names displayed on signs and outlined in official documents should
> match the authorized spelling of the road name. For street names beginning
> with Saint, the abbreviated spelling is correct.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John House
> Supervisor, Land & Property Surveys
> Engineering Support Services
> Engineering & Construction Services
> City of Toronto
>
> Names in Openstreetmap may only be abbreviated if the expanded version is
> incorrect.  Where either are acceptable, the Saint must be used.  In
> general, an abbreviation in an official document does not imply that the
> expanded version is incorrect; it may just be used for convenience.  I'm
> still not 100% convinced that we should be using St even in Toronto (note
> that John admits to it being an "abbreviated spelling") but I just wanted
> to throw his response out there.
>
> Tristan
>
>
>
> From: Nate Wessel 
> Sent: March 15, 2019 1:42 PM
> To: Jarek Piórkowski
> Cc: talk-ca
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Saints in street names in Ontario
>
>
> Interesting!
>
>
> I didn't mean to imply that etymology should be decisive, but that linking
> the name to the history of some beatified person would help explain the
> origin of the 'St'... In this case, seemingly supporting the abbreviation,
> but also referencing an actual 'saint' or two at the same time.
>
>
> I like Danny's suggestion of the pronunciation tag. That seems like the
> most elegant solution if anyone knows IPA. I've always wanted to learn it
> actually but haven't yet had a good enough reason.
>
>
> Nate Wessel
> Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning
> NateWessel.com
>
>
> On 3/15/19 1:18 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 13:02, Nate Wessel  wrote:
>
> Don't forget about the various alternative naming tags like alt_name=*,
> short_name=*, loc_name=*, and also name:etymology=* to make things
> absolutely clear.
>
> Having either spelling in one of these alternatives as appropriate would
> likely satisfy any dissenters and make both the full and abbreviated name
> searchable.
>
> Certainly, but my message is to suggest that "St. Clair Avenue West"
> _is_ the full name. We could set up an "expanded name" tag I suppose?
>
> Etymology wise, Wikipedia, citing (as far as I can tell) local
> historians, suggests that St. Clair Avenue is named after Augustine
> St. Clare, a character in Uncle Tom's Cabin, and the book spells the
> last name "St. Clare", never expanded to "Saint".
>
> In any case, suggesting etymology as being decisive for names seems to
> me problematic in many ways, especially in Canada where we've
> adopted/mangled many names and phrases from other languages.
>
> Thanks,
> --Jarek
>
> ___
> 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] Building Import

[John Whelan]

Bonne chance

John

Begin Daniel wrote on 2019-03-19 2:14 PM:


I expect Pierre, Tim and others to send me any data they believe would 
be problematic. If I send them my own test dataset, it may not cover 
the cases they are interested in. J


Daniel

*From:*john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2019 13:32
*To:* Begin Daniel
*Cc:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

It would make logical sense to preprocess all the data but then you 
end up with two sources.  The Open Data original and the preprocessed 
data source.


From a logical point of view it would make sense to use the Microsoft 
data to fill in the gaps.  So add it into the preprocessed data.


Then you get to reality.  To make it work across Canada you need to 
get agreement and that I think will be the most difficult part.


Step one I think is ask Pierre nicely to review a sample and see if it 
meets his "quality" expectations.


Step two would be check with Tim in Montreal for his thoughts.

If they are both in agreement that it is acceptable then we see if we 
can get some sort of acceptance across the country possibly blacking 
out certain areas.


If we can we'll need to go back to the import mailing list and say we 
wish to combine two sources and amend the plan accordingly.


Otherwise it is up to whoever sorts out an import plan / import for a 
particular area to consider its use.


Cheerio John

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 12:59, Begin Daniel > wrote:


Hi all,

As mentioned a few weeks ago, I have almost completed the
development of a clean-up tool for the data to be imported.

So far, it removes nonessential vertices, orthogonalizes building
corners when reasonable and ensures walls’ alignment within given
tolerances. Building footprints that can’t be processed completely
are flagged accordingly, so they could be examined thoroughly at
import time.

Eventually, It should be easy to remove overlapping buildings
(potentially generated from a 3d mapping), but I doubt that
splitting terrace into individual buildings can be done
automatically.

The tool uses some parameters that need to be adjusted. I would
like that those who are interested in this aspect of the import
send me benchmark data that could be problematic. I will process
them to adjust parameters and/or the tool, and I will send back
the results to the sender for a thorough examination.

I should soon document the process in the “Canada Building Import”
wiki page (in a pre-processing section).

Thought? Comments?

Daniel

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



--
Sent from Postbox 

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

[Begin Daniel]

I expect Pierre, Tim and others to send me any data they believe would be 
problematic. If I send them my own test dataset, it may not cover the cases 
they are interested in. ☺

Daniel

From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 13:32
To: Begin Daniel
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

It would make logical sense to preprocess all the data but then you end up with 
two sources.  The Open Data original and the preprocessed data source.

From a logical point of view it would make sense to use the Microsoft data to 
fill in the gaps.  So add it into the preprocessed data.

Then you get to reality.  To make it work across Canada you need to get 
agreement and that I think will be the most difficult part.

Step one I think is ask Pierre nicely to review a sample and see if it meets 
his "quality" expectations.

Step two would be check with Tim in Montreal for his thoughts.

If they are both in agreement that it is acceptable then we see if we can get 
some sort of acceptance across the country possibly blacking out certain areas.

If we can we'll need to go back to the import mailing list and say we wish to 
combine two sources and amend the plan accordingly.

Otherwise it is up to whoever sorts out an import plan / import for a 
particular area to consider its use.

Cheerio John

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 12:59, Begin Daniel 
mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
As mentioned a few weeks ago, I have almost completed the development of a 
clean-up tool for the data to be imported.
So far, it removes nonessential vertices, orthogonalizes building corners when 
reasonable and ensures walls’ alignment within given tolerances. Building 
footprints that can’t be processed completely are flagged accordingly, so they 
could be examined thoroughly at import time.
Eventually, It should be easy to remove overlapping buildings (potentially 
generated from a 3d mapping), but I doubt that splitting terrace into 
individual buildings can be done automatically.
The tool uses some parameters that need to be adjusted. I would like that those 
who are interested in this aspect of the import send me benchmark data that 
could be problematic. I will process them to adjust parameters and/or the tool, 
and I will send back the results to the sender for a thorough examination.
I should soon document the process in the “Canada Building Import” wiki page 
(in a pre-processing section).

Thought? Comments?

Daniel

___
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] Building Import

[john whelan]

It would make logical sense to preprocess all the data but then you end up
with two sources.  The Open Data original and the preprocessed data source.

>From a logical point of view it would make sense to use the Microsoft data
to fill in the gaps.  So add it into the preprocessed data.

Then you get to reality.  To make it work across Canada you need to get
agreement and that I think will be the most difficult part.

Step one I think is ask Pierre nicely to review a sample and see if it
meets his "quality" expectations.

Step two would be check with Tim in Montreal for his thoughts.

If they are both in agreement that it is acceptable then we see if we can
get some sort of acceptance across the country possibly blacking out
certain areas.

If we can we'll need to go back to the import mailing list and say we wish
to combine two sources and amend the plan accordingly.

Otherwise it is up to whoever sorts out an import plan / import for a
particular area to consider its use.

Cheerio John

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 12:59, Begin Daniel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As mentioned a few weeks ago, I have almost completed the development of a
> clean-up tool for the data to be imported.
>
> So far, it removes nonessential vertices, orthogonalizes building corners
> when reasonable and ensures walls’ alignment within given tolerances.
> Building footprints that can’t be processed completely are flagged
> accordingly, so they could be examined thoroughly at import time.
>
> Eventually, It should be easy to remove overlapping buildings (potentially
> generated from a 3d mapping), but I doubt that splitting terrace into
> individual buildings can be done automatically.
>
> The tool uses some parameters that need to be adjusted. I would like that
> those who are interested in this aspect of the import send me benchmark
> data that could be problematic. I will process them to adjust parameters
> and/or the tool, and I will send back the results to the sender for a
> thorough examination.
>
> I should soon document the process in the “Canada Building Import” wiki
> page (in a pre-processing section).
>
>
>
> Thought? Comments?
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
> ___
> 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] Defining a local mapper group

[john whelan]

This needs a bit of context.  It relates to importing building outlines of
which there are two Open Data sources available for Canada both have
acceptable licenses.

Traditionally mappers have concentrated on one aspect of mapping.  I happen
to like bus stops for example and bus shelters also footpaths that lead to
them.

What we have discovered is different people have different ideas of what is
acceptable.  Ottawa mappers for example are happy with the building
outlines available for Ottawa.  At least one mapper outside Ottawa feels
the Ottawa building outlines are not acceptable because they do all have
right angles at the corners.

We have a mapper in Toronto who I understand feels that building outlines
should be simplified to omit things like bay windows.  Bay windows appear
to be acceptable in Montreal.

So what the local mappers find acceptable is acceptable.

Then we get to people like Jonathon whose only interest is not mapping
building outlines but in using tools such as street complete to add tags to
building outlines.  Students using street complete rather than drawing in
the building outline in iD then adding tags create fewer errors on the
map.  They are interested in having those building outlines on the map that
can be enriched.  Are their desires taken into account or do they have to
map something first?

Now we get to the tricky bit.  I'm local to Ottawa but I very rarely do
meetups.  So should my vote count?

If Africa there are lots of HOT remote mappers but ideally any decisions
are made by the "local" mappers.

So who counts as a local mapper?  Just those who attend a physical
meeting.  What about a conference call?  HOT allows its mumble servers to
be used for OSM business by the way.  Mumble is an Open Source VIOP.   I've
seen conference calls used to discuss things certainly, Slack is another
method of communication that I know nothing about other than it is
commercial. The major cities are fine but some of the smaller locations
have very few mappers.  One of the Ontario towns I've been mapping remotely
in has essentially one mapper who is very much in favour of importing
buildings.  Their thoughts are not really relevant since practically all
the building outlines in that location have been mapped with JOSM and the
buildings_tool plugin.  If I look at Ontario there is one mapper whose name
pops up all over the place but are they a "local" mapper for locations a
thousand kilometers apart?

So since it is the local mappers who make decisions, who are they?

Cheerio John

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 11:34, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> If you’re interested in forming local mapper groups based on actual
> contributions to OSM you are free to use the Meet Your Mapper tool I built
> a little while ago.
>
> You can draw a bounding box and retrieve a list of mappers who contributed
> there. It generates some basic stats such as number of nodes / ways /
> relations and tries to classify mappers in a few categories.
>
> Some more information here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/44833 and the tool lives
> at https://mym.rtijn.org/
>
> Martijn
>
> On Mar 19, 2019, at 11:29 AM, Jonathan Brown  wrote:
>
> Ideally, a local mapper/group would be one that contributed data to an
> open digital map that can be verified and used to solve a problem (e.g.,
> food security, fresh water, climate change, etc.). The local mapping group
> should be able to contribute data via satellite imagery, open data, and/or
> a physical location. The challenge is how to cultivate and maintain local
> mapper groups based on volunteer work.
>
> Jonathan Brown
>
> *From: *John Whelan 
> *Sent: *Friday, March 15, 2019 10:01 AM
> *To: *Jonathan Brown 
> *Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Local groups as part of import plan
>
> The problem is defining and contacting a local group.  Once defined then
> they can make the decision.
>
> I've seen as few as two people make a local group decision on an import
> before now although normally it is done over coffee.
>
> Also we get into who is a local mapper.
>
> Many people have an interest in seeing the data imported but I'm under the
> impression only those with a OpenStreetMap userid who have contributed
> count.
>
> Would anyone care to define a local mapper or group?
>
> Thanks John
>
> Jonathan Brown wrote on 2019-03-15 9:46 AM:
>
> Could we get Stats Can to support a few local groups who want to use a
> common framework for a collaborative research project that addresses a
> sustainable development goal outcome (e.g., the OSM fresh security challenge
>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Food_security and
> https://www.usda.gov/topics/food-and-nutrition/food-security) ?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Talk-ca mailing list
>
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> --
> Sent from Postbox
> 

Re: [Talk-ca] Defining a local mapper group

[Martijn van Exel]

If you’re interested in forming local mapper groups based on actual 
contributions to OSM you are free to use the Meet Your Mapper tool I built a 
little while ago.

You can draw a bounding box and retrieve a list of mappers who contributed 
there. It generates some basic stats such as number of nodes / ways / relations 
and tries to classify mappers in a few categories. 

Some more information here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/44833 
 and the tool lives at 
https://mym.rtijn.org/  

Martijn

> On Mar 19, 2019, at 11:29 AM, Jonathan Brown  wrote:
> 
> Ideally, a local mapper/group would be one that contributed data to an open 
> digital map that can be verified and used to solve a problem (e.g., food 
> security, fresh water, climate change, etc.). The local mapping group should 
> be able to contribute data via satellite imagery, open data, and/or a 
> physical location. The challenge is how to cultivate and maintain local 
> mapper groups based on volunteer work. 
>  
> Jonathan Brown
>  
> From: John Whelan 
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 10:01 AM
> To: Jonathan Brown 
> Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Local groups as part of import plan
>  
> The problem is defining and contacting a local group.  Once defined then they 
> can make the decision.
> 
> I've seen as few as two people make a local group decision on an import 
> before now although normally it is done over coffee.
> 
> Also we get into who is a local mapper.
> 
> Many people have an interest in seeing the data imported but I'm under the 
> impression only those with a OpenStreetMap userid who have contributed count.
> 
> Would anyone care to define a local mapper or group?
> 
> Thanks John
> 
> Jonathan Brown wrote on 2019-03-15 9:46 AM:
> 
> Could we get Stats Can to support a few local groups who want to use a common 
> framework for a collaborative research project that addresses a sustainable 
> development goal outcome (e.g., the OSM fresh security challenge 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Food_security 
>  and 
> https://www.usda.gov/topics/food-and-nutrition/food-security 
> ) ? 
>  
> Jonathan 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
> 
>  
> -- 
> Sent from Postbox 
> 
>  
> ___
> 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] Defining a local mapper group

[Jonathan Brown]

Ideally, a local mapper/group would be one that contributed data to an open 
digital map that can be verified and used to solve a problem (e.g., food 
security, fresh water, climate change, etc.). The local mapping group should be 
able to contribute data via satellite imagery, open data, and/or a physical 
location. The challenge is how to cultivate and maintain local mapper groups 
based on volunteer work. 

Jonathan Brown

From: John Whelan
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 10:01 AM
To: Jonathan Brown
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Local groups as part of import plan

The problem is defining and contacting a local group.  Once defined then they 
can make the decision.

I've seen as few as two people make a local group decision on an import before 
now although normally it is done over coffee.

Also we get into who is a local mapper.

Many people have an interest in seeing the data imported but I'm under the 
impression only those with a OpenStreetMap userid who have contributed count.

Would anyone care to define a local mapper or group?

Thanks John

Jonathan Brown wrote on 2019-03-15 9:46 AM:

Could we get Stats Can to support a few local groups who want to use a common 
framework for a collaborative research project that addresses a sustainable 
development goal outcome (e.g., the OSM fresh security challenge 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Food_security and 
https://www.usda.gov/topics/food-and-nutrition/food-security) ? 
 
Jonathan 
 



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

-- 
Sent from Postbox

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

[Talk-ca] hebdoOSM Nº 451 2019-03-05-2019-03-11

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 451 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/11622/

Bonne lecture !

Saviez-vous que vous pouvez vous aussi soumettre des messages pour la note 
hebdomadaire sans être membre ? Il vous suffit de vous connecter sur 
https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login avec votre compte OSM. Pour en savoir plus 
sur la rédaction d'un article, cliquez ici: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca