Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
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
Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
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 compa
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
[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
Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)
This is fantastic news! Thank you everyone for your help! We can follow the same steps and workflow in the future if we potentially move to another city. This is also something municipalities can use in defining their open data licenses. Bjenk Ellefsen ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] [Imports] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada]
We have started all discussions on this project with OSM and the local group in Ottawa / Gatineau back in the spring of 2016. We are not the first ones in Canada to start such a process. As John mentioned, Mojgan and Stephen at Metrolinx worked on Toronto last year. Both Mojgan and Stephen are advisors on the Ottawa/Gatineau pilot and our steps are basically the same. We are working in direct collaboration with the City of Ottawa and have their permission to use the footprints and addresses, which has been stated and documented and we are in constant communication. We have have an ongoing outreach campaign coordinated by the City of Ottawa and StatCan (check us out and their account on twitter!). With that said, a statement from LWG should clear all data from Ottawa’s portal and any worries from anyone about any retaliation against the use of their Open Data for OSM and this should be soon according to Kathleen Lu, the legal license advisor at Mapbox. We have definitely done our due diligence and hopefully, we can work on completing the map and focus on enriching it as soon as possible. Bjenk Ellefsen (StatCan) ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada
Most participants here agree that open data initiatives exist so that we, the public, organizations including OSM, everyone can use the data. With that said, It has not yet been clearly explained what are the issues nor the sources raising concerns. Many have asked for clarifications and these have not been presented. Public servants at the City of Ottawa are supporting the project and OSM and so is StatCan, obviously. Sent from my iPhone ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 107, Issue 20
The fundamental principle of Open Data is that some data are freely available to all and can be used and republished however they wish. Municipalities and Governments have embraced the idea and these initiatives are not only there for everyone but for OSM as well. ODL are there precisely to give these permissions so bureaucrats don't have to give personal permission to every single person asking for something. When raising a concern with the current City of Ottawa ODL, the least that should be done is to state clearly what problem there is in the wording. This has not been done and it's clear that most here consider it to be valid for what we do. What is the problem with the wording? Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 22, 2017, at 12:48 PM, talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > 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: Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada (James) > 2. Re: Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada (Steve Singer) > 3. Re: Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada (James) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 12:06:39 -0500 > From: James > To: John Marshall > Cc: Paul Norman , Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > What I don't understand is even if there was the most open license > possible, you are requiring to get an authorisation to use the data...So > what's the point of having a legal group or dealing with licensing as if a > restrictive copyrighted dataset that sues anyone who uses the data, if we > have express permission that license doesnt apply to us as we have been > added as an exception to the license. > > So if I understand correctly Paul, CC0 or any other license would require > permission as a bypass to the license, even though it would be considered > compatible with ODBL. To me this is why licensing exists, to avoid having > to have to manage each licensing use case and says what you can/can't do > with the data. > >> On Jan 22, 2017 10:08 AM, "John Marshall" wrote: >> >> Paul, >> >> So once we get a letter from the City of Ottawa, are we good to add the >> buildings as per the wiki? >> >> John >> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:41 AM, john whelan >> wrote: >> >>> There is another way forward for Stats at the moment and that would be to >>> use the Statistics Canada address file which is available on the Federal >>> Government Open Data portal under the Federal Government Open Data >>> licence. The addresses are nodes rather than building outlines but there >>> is nothing to stop building:levels, and postcode etc. being added to a node. >>> >>> This was the file that Metrolink used to add addresses in the Toronto >>> area. It also has the benefit that it uses less storage in the OSM >>> database. >>> >>> Cheerio John >>> On 21 January 2017 at 21:34, john whelan wrote: It's to do with the way government works and is structured. What you have is an official interpretation which carries weight. Quite a lot of weight. Essentially both Canada and the UK are run by acts of parliament. However these are normally interpreted by civil servants to keep things running smoothly. For example in the UK by an Act of parliament of 1837 bicycles are not permitted to use the sidewalks but administratively you will not be prosecuted for cycling on the sidewalk in certain parts of the UK. The act hasn't been repealed but it is simply not enforced. The decision was taken by a civil servant after consultations but is upheld by the government. The day to day running is done by civil servants interpreting the minister's wishes or act of Parliament. There will be discussion and debate at a greater depth than either a minister or Parliament have the time for and the decision will be recorded together with the reasons for and against it. This can lead to a formal report with a recommendation. It is a brave manager or minister who doesn't accept the recommendations. Have a look at Yes Minister and you'll see that brave here means foolish. There has to be a level of trust between the politicians and the civil service for this to work. The direction is set by the politicians but the day to day stuff by the civil servants. If
Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 107, Issue 17
Stewart, thank you for providing more details. What exactly in Ottawa's new open Data license (it recently was updated) is a problem for OSM? Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 22, 2017, at 7:00 AM, talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > 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: Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Stewart C. Russell) > 2. hebdoOSM Nº 339 10/01/2017-16/01/2017 (weeklyteam) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 23:03:56 -0500 > From: "Stewart C. Russell" > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada > Message-ID: <6a9996a6-bed4-d85f-5b73-13dd1766c...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi Bjenk - > >> I am not sure why there is confusion about Ottawa's ODL and it's >> equivalence to OGL because the information is public but here it is to >> clarify: >> >> "The Open Data License is based on version 2.0 of the “Open Government >> Licence – Canada” which was developed through public consultation and >> consultation with other jurisdictions" > > I sense your frustration, and understand that this process must be > trying. But it's partly an artifact of the licence itself. > > The Open Government Licence - Canada, version 2.0 (OGL-CA) is compatible > with OSM's licence. This was confirmed in 2013: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-November/005906.html > > (Paul Norman tells me that there's an official notice somewhere from > Government confirming this, but neither he nor I can find it.) > > Unfortunately, one trait of the licence inherited from its parent (the > Open Government Licence United Kingdom 2.0, > https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/) > is that it is not _reusable_. Here, reusable means that the licence is > not specific to an organization or jurisdiction. The OGL-CA has Her > Majesty the Queen in right of Canada baked in as Information Provider. > No-one but the Federal government can be that Information Provider. So > even if Municipality of X wished to adopt the “Open Government Licence - > X” by replacing ‘Canada’ with ‘X’, it would have to make textual changes > to the licence, and in doing so — and this is the critical part — makes > a new and different licence from the OGL-CA. > > (Paul N. previously suggested that the UK OGL was more reusable, and had > better CC BY and ODC BY compatibility than OGL-CA.) > > So we can't use Ottawa's data under the Federal OGL-CA. > > Even with the best intentions, adoption of the OGL-CA results in > fragmentation. For example, there's the "Open Government Licence – > Ontario", the "Open Government Licence – Toronto" and the "Open > Government Licence - Toronto Public Library". All of these, though based > on OGL-CA, are *different* licences, and necessarily so. Accepting the > OGL-CA hasn't allowed OSM to automatically accept all the derivatives > under it. > > (It also helps that OSM explicitly has a statement from the Federal > Government saying that we have permission to use their data. This > permission does not flow down to provincial or municipal data.) > > If one happens to be a government, or a large commercial entity, one can > muster lawyers to ensure one's continued existence if there's a legal > challenge. OpenStreetMap doesn't have that luxury. In order to ensure > continuity of the OSM project, a degree of caution is required. > > So while access to open data is valued by the community, it would be > lovely if someone could pay for all the lawyers needed to go over the > licences on behalf of OSM/OSMF too. To the best of my knowledge this > assistance has seldom been forthcoming. > > Best Wishes, > Stewart > > > > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 00:00:14 -0800 (PST) > From: weeklyteam > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: hebdoOSM Nº 339 10/01/2017-16/01/2017 > Message-ID: <5884668e.d5091c0a.30ed4.d...@mx.google.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Bonjour, > > Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 339 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître > en français. Un condensé à retrouver à: > > http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/8619/ > > Bonne lecture! > > 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] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada
I am not sure why there is confusion about Ottawa's ODL and it's equivalence to OGL because the information is public but here it is to clarify: "The Open Data License is based on version 2.0 of the “Open Government Licence – Canada” which was developed through public consultation and consultation with other jurisdictions" http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-license-change-faq Sent from my iPhone___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
A couple of things to consider and what follows is in my name and I do not speak for StatCan: Open Data is the way Governments are going to release data to be used by the public freely. Many are working hard through consultations to further these initiatives precisely because they are the sole medium by which Governments are going to release data that normally the public would never have access to. Open Data for Governments are released under licenses, which were modelled after extensive consultations to be as permissive as they can be under the responsibility of these jurisdictions. OGL-Canada was done to allow Canadians and anyone really to use data from Federal Government and that allows anyone to not have to go to a specific group or owner of datasets in Federal Departments and get a personal commitment and permission, which is highly unlikely: no one has that authority. Open Data programs are a wonderful progress and medium which we will all work to support and enhance. The City of Ottawa has gone through extensive work to revise their Open Data licence so that it is modelled after OGL-Canada as it is stated in their FAQ. The Federal license might become a standard for Canada in the future. As for the dataset released yesterday: urban buildings, it was released after months of negotiations between the City and StatCan and an internal consultation at the City of Ottawa with lawyers experts in Open Data. They were all supportive of the concepts and principles behind Open data and this dataset was released precisely in support of this project which is a collaboration between municipalities, StatCan and OSM community. This is entirely for the benefit of OSM. Also, other Departments and Municipalities are joining the discussion and interest is rising for OSM. Open Data initiatives are going to be the main vehicle to provide data to the public. Bjenk ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
