Re: [Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #534 2020-10-06-2020-10-12
For anyone interested, it appears the link for this week's news should be https://weeklyosm.eu/archives/13839 On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 06:13, weeklyteam wrote: > > The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 534, > is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of > things happening in the openstreetmap world: > > https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13803/ > > Enjoy! > > Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in > to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more > about how to write a post here: > http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm > > weeklyOSM? > who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages > where?: > 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 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Proposal to tag Yonge Street in Toronto and York Region as Primary
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 11:30, Andrew Deng via Talk-ca
wrote:
> Hello, I believe Yonge Street in Toronto and York Region (Regional Road 1)
> should be tagged as highway=primary rather than highway=secondary as it is
> tagged now.
> Here are some reasons I believe why:
> 1) Yonge Street is considered the "Main Street" of Toronto, Thornhill,
> Richmond Hill, and Aurora. It is also a major road in Newmarket.
> 2) It is a major thoroughfare throughout the route. In Toronto, the Yonge
> subway follows it and in York Region, Viva bus lanes are being built. It also
> connects to Bradford in the north.> 3) It was a former Ontario King's Highway
> - Highway 11. Some other former King's Highways in the Toronto/York area are
> tagged as highway=primary, such as Highway 27, Highway 7, and Highway 48.
Hi Andrew, hi mailing list,
I've been thinking about this for a while. Thanks for bringing this up!
I'd like to contribute to a wider discussion about tagging primary in
Ontario, particularly in urban and suburban areas. I think we should
use it more - here's why.
I've been unhappy for a while with the tagging guidelines for Ontario
roads. The primary/secondary/tertiary OSM scheme originated in the UK,
where basically all "A-roads" are primary (or trunk) and all "B-roads"
are secondary. This is a UK-wide scheme and a crucial point is that
there are still A-roads in busy urban areas. For example what is by
GTA standards a narrow street in inner city like
https://osm.org/way/327282307 (one-way, 1 or at most 2 lanes) is
primary because it's an A road. [1] Many other regions in Europe also
use primary for urban thoroughfares with frequent cross streets.
For a long time, the Canadian tagging guidelines were a very close
copy of the UK scheme - check out Danny's wiki edit in May 2019 [2]
that removed very UK-like references to "C roads" (a UK
classification) and "a suburb" ("An example would be the main roads
within the suburb to get to the local primary school", "A
highway=residential road which is used for accessing or moving between
private residential properties (homes). Otherwise called a
'suburb'."), and removed a statement that primary, secondary, and
tertiary roads are "all maintained by the provincial governments, with
provincial jurisdiction."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence
still specifies that in Canada, a highway=primary is a "Provincial
primary highway that does not meet freeway standards". That might work
in BC, where there are provincial highways in downtown Vancouver, but
it doesn't work in Ontario. BC Highway 99 through downtown Vancouver
is tagged as trunk, and it is no wider than Yonge through York Region
tagged as secondary.
Historically, in Ontario, the maintenance and jurisdiction of a road
has more to do with whether a lower-level government could be
strong-armed into accepting ownership in the 1990s than with its
actual role in the road network. Ontario government downloaded the
roads it could onto the regions and cities, but of course the volume
of traffic or significance of the road doesn't change just because we
enter a somewhat-built-up area (or it increases). There's some good
examples along Highway 7 entering east Kitchener and east Guelph.
Highways 8 and 24 entering south Cambridge are more examples - it's
just a cut at point of jurisdiction change, it's got nothing to do
with the actual road or its use.
As a result, we don't really show the main roads in Ontario cities. We
mostly jump from a freeway straight to secondary, and most exceptions
are recent changes.
To an extent a grid system, which most Ontario cities use, does of
course consist of a number of fairly equal arterials, but natural
obstacles often get in the way, and so in Toronto/GTA some arterials
are more equal than others. Is every grid street really the same rank?
When everything is secondary, what really is secondary?
To give some examples, in Toronto Lake Shore Blvd is clearly a busier
road and can carry more inter-local traffic than Church or Yonge
downtown, yet currently they're all secondary. Adelaide and Richmond
are the designated through corridors - consider especially their
direct connection to the DVP. Given the choice, you should be driving
on Adelaide/Richmond, not on Queen - they are designed for this. Yet
again, Queen, Adelaide, and Richmond are currently all secondary.
Until last year, York Region's Highway 7 was being indicated the same
secondary as Dundas Street next to Dundas Square (because after all,
Hwy 7 was downloaded). They are clearly not even close to being the
same category - which would you rather walk along? which would you
rather drive 10 km along? Same with Highway 27 [3].
Provincial ownership gives us more curious examples. Check out the
official provincial Highway 7: https://osm.org/relation/4114735 (and
see dissenting view below for tagging of the non-classified parts). In
Thorold, there is a short stretch of primary connnecting five
Re: [Talk-ca] can I submit road data?
The limitation is generally licensing. Openstreetmap can accept an import of data that is freely licensed, but the criteria for "freely" are fairly strict - most Canadian cities' "open data" don't meet it. If you're familiar with Creative Commons, the license will likely have to be as free or more free as cc-by-sa. In particular, a lot of Canadian open data licenses have indemnification clauses which rule them out as sources. Otherwise, if you're familiar with the area you can try editing the roads manually - there is a number of satellite imagery sources which has been approved for tracing in OSM, and you can use personal knowledge as source for things like road surfaces or widths. --Jarek On Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 13:55 Jason Carlson, wrote: > I noticed a number of roads in our county are incorrect in our area (as > are most rural areas with next to no population). I recently rebuilt all > our GIS road data and submitted it to an organization that then > redistributes it to emergency dispatch services and about 25 > organizations/companies. I did not see OpenStreetMap as one of the ones > they send data too so I was wondering if I could submit that data myself to > them? > > Jason > ___ > 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] Ça reste ouvert
Just to add an opinion: I think this tag is a great idea. I don't care as much for promoting OpenStreetMap in this case - I'm not sure we have a critical density of surveyors to make this a valuable resource in Canada or individual cities. And I'm not sure this would be a great project to introduce new mappers, who, at least in Toronto, can just look at Google and already see what's "temporarily closed". But as someone who uses OpenStreetMap a lot, yes, I do want relevant, timely data in it, and I'm happy to enter it when I can. A neighbourhood coffee shop I saw has no updates on their website or social media, phone listed on website is not connected anymore: the only way to find out if they're open or not is to read a sign on their door. That sort of thing is IMO what OSM is about. If a major stretch of a freeway was closed for construction for a month, we'd include it in OSM. Same here. --Jarek On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 20:21, Pierre Béland via Talk-ca wrote: > > En quelques semaines, la communauté OSM-France a débuté le projet de carte > Ça reste ouvert et traduit en plusieurs langues. Une application Android est > aussi développée. Et l'application permet de se connecter à OSM et ajouter > des données. > > https://www.caresteouvert.fr/@48.854628,2.424893,13.48 > https://github.com/osmontrouge/caresteouvert > > Plus de 20 000 objets ont été édités en France seulement. Puis plusieurs pays > ont été ajoutés : Allemagne, Suisse, Espagne, Andorre. > > Si des contributeurs canadiens sont intéressés à l'ajout du Canada au projet, > ce serait l'occasion de faire la promotion d'OSM au Canada et d'ajouter > rapidement de nombreux POI de commerces et producteurs locaux. Dans chaque > province, nous pourrions faire la promotion du projet et inviter à participer. > > Je vois plusieurs projets organisés rapidement au Québec, mais je pense que > si nous réagissons rapidement et ajoutons des commerces, cela pourrait > susciter un intérêt pour utiliser OpenStreetMap. > > Qu'en pensez-vous? > > Pierre ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #490 2019-12-03-2019-12-09
Thanks for the summary, weeklyteam! The tagging proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive might be of interest to Canadian mappers. It is intended to cover carpool lots. At least in Ontario, many MTO carpool lots are tagged with park_ride= (park & ride) and although many are now served by GO or local transit agencies, some are not - so a second tag for "park & drive" or "carpool" could improve accuracy. Please weigh in on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/park_drive if you have thoughts. There is apparently a carpool= key, but almost entirely used in France. Comments from Québec on if carpool lots are tagged in Québec and how you'd like them to be tagged better would also be a great addition. Thanks, --Jarek On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 09:46, weeklyteam wrote: > > The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 490, > is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of > things happening in the openstreetmap world: > > http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/12637/ > > Enjoy! > > Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in > to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more > about how to write a post here: > http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm > > weeklyOSM? > who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages > where?: > 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 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Parkings amb carsharing (opendata bcn)
Hi Joan, this is the Canadian mailing list, not the Catalan one :) Thanks, --Jarek On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 at 19:59, Joan Quintana wrote: > > Aquesta importació ha de ser fàcil, només són 25 parkings amb carsharing. > El dubte és l'etiqueta. > A [1] es proposa dues etiquetes: > > amenity=parking > amenity=car_sharing > > Però no es contempla la possibilitat de què un parking tingui un número > reservat de places per carsharing. > > Com s'hauria de fer en aquest cas? > Joan Quintana > > [1]. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:amenity%3Dparking > ___ > 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] weeklyOSM #481 2019-10-01-2019-10-07
Thanks for the summaries, Weekly Team! Of particular interest should be the upcoming release of a game that takes in data from OSM, which might sometimes result in edits adding fake data for sake of having data in the game, as we saw with Pokémon Go: "The Scandinavian gaming website IGN Nordic provides some insight about the upcoming augmented reality game Minecraft Earth. The map in the game is based on OpenStreetMap. Minecraft’s creative director recommends that players join OSM for editing, something that people with Pokémon GO in mind may hear with mixed feelings. The Guardian featured Minecraft Earth in article titled “Minecraft Earth is coming – it will change the way you see your town” and included three sections about OSM." - weeklyOSM "Where are the parks, where are the trails, where are the sidewalks, what streets are closed, open, what are the opening hours of all this? We ingest all of that, and we turn it into Minecraft. We re-ingest the whole world once every month, we re-ingest every part of the world, and then reflect that in the game." - https://nordic.ign.com/switch/29645/interview/18-things-we-just-learnt-about-minecraft-and-minecraft-earth "It’ll give you information about areas that are not so nice, like really shady clubs. We use these tags to generate a blacklist of where not to place items" - https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/oct/01/minecraft-earth-launch-games-microsoft-augmented-reality Thanks, --Jarek On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 06:29, weeklyteam wrote: > > The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 481, > is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things > happening in the openstreetmap world: > http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/12448/ > > Enjoy! > > Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in > to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more > about how to write a post here: > http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm > > weeklyOSM? > who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages > where?: > 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 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #480 2019-09-24-2019-09-30
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 12:23, weeklyteam wrote: > The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 480, > is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things > happening in the openstreetmap world: > http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/12433/ > > Enjoy! > > Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in > to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more > about how to write a post here: > http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm Dear Weekly Team, Thank you for your efforts producing the weekly summary. Is there any reason the Upcoming Events table does not include the Toronto meetup on October 7? I added it to the calendar on September 29: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACalendar=revision=1908808=1908622 and I would like to know if I made a mistake. The meetup is: https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Toronto/events/265246337/ Thanks, --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Postcodes in Canada
Yeah, Canada Post currently considers postal codes their commercial data. Crowd-sourcing all or a substantial amount of full codes seems infeasible. Crowd-sourcing the forward sortation areas (the first A1A) seems difficult since verifiability is going to be a problem especially around the edges of the areas. The website OpenStreetMap.org returns results for some postal codes from a third-party database https://geocoder.ca/?terms=1 which is not ODbL-compatible either. Partial mapping is causing some problems with tools like Nominatim that attach the nearest tagged postcode to search results, often resulting in improper postal codes for reverse address lookups, however that is arguably a tooling problem and not an OSM problem per se. This isn't going to be pretty until Canada Post is persuaded to free the data. Call your MP, everybody. --Jarek On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 17:38, john whelan wrote: > > " The number one request on open.canada.ca is to open the postal code > database. Feel free to add your vote. > https://open.canada.ca/en/suggested-datasets; > > Cheerio John > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 13:32, john whelan wrote: >> >> On the import mailing list there is a proposal to import postcodes in the UK >> one of the reasons given was that many like to input a postcode to get >> directions on smartphones using things like OSMand. >> >> I don't think an Open Data source with the correct licensing is available in >> Canada but OSMand appears to be able to use the postcode if it is entered in >> the map as part of the address. Is there any Open Data that might be useful? >> >> I don't know if it is possible but could something be used to extract >> postcodes in the current map and from there perhaps we could come up with a >> list of missing postcodes that need one address with it in mapped? >> >> As a minimum if you could add a few in you know from local knowledge that >> might help fill in some gaps. >> >> Thoughts >> >> Thanks John > > ___ > 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 buildings in Canada
Hi all, To be a bit more positive: If we want to get buildings on the map, but we can't get Canada-wide data improved by Statcan to a standard acceptable to all mappers in Canada, IMO the best bet will be to split this into much smaller batches and support local mappers who would be interested in getting the data in. In my browsing of neis-one.org statistics for Canadian mappers and the Notes active in Canada, I've seen active mappers and small communities in at least Halifax, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Victoria metros, and I might have missed some more. Many of them I have never seen on the mailing list (which is a whole another issue), but contacting them directly (via osm.org messages?), asking if they are aware of other local mappers, if they would be interested in having building data, if it is of acceptable standard to them, and if they would be willing to help validate-and-upload the data (with help of the central tooling) might get some success. I hope that will go better than the previous attempt which could be read - uncharitably - as a bunch of mailing list insiders throwing federal data over the fence with little consultation. It'll be a lot of work communicating and organizing. But getting buildings is a lot of work, and if data producers can't do better, whoever wants the buildings will have to do the work. Maybe with more local support even the imports list will be more bearable. Thanks, --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing buildings in Canada
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 11:45, john whelan wrote: > ... > About that time an American mapper, Nate, who was living in Toronto ... Sorry, one more thing. Nate was an active editor in Toronto at the time of the initial import conflict/objection and has remained so as regularly as we can ask of any community member. In Toronto we call people living here and contributing to the community "Torontonians". As you will recall, I disagree with Nate about the suitability of initial building import data. Notwithstanding, the description quoted above reads unfairly dismissive to me. You can maybe make arguments about Torontonians discussing what shouldn't be imported in rest of Canada, or about whether we should expect mappers to be subscribed to talk-ca, but let's leave places of birth out of this. --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing buildings in Canada
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:43, John Whelan wrote: > The Stat Can data comes directly from the municipalities so each municipality > will have a different quality of data. The Microsoft and NR Can data maybe > more consistent. Statcan could improve the data and make it more consistent. On this front I agree with the dissenters - I appreciate that Statcan has put the licence stamp on the data, but otherwise they're basically throwing it over the fence and hoping people do work for them for free. I personally don't care about 89 degree angles, but it's tough to argue in Statcan's favour here. > Both your input and Nate's are useful in that at least they confirm my > thoughts that there is little chance of moving forward on a Canada wide basis. > > Hopefully the Toronto mappers can sort something out for Toronto and the rest > will follow in time. As a Toronto mapper, I'm happy to load data into JOSM and press Q on it if that's approved, but for sake of mental health I will not be posting to the imports mailing list. > I seem to recall Montreal thought it would sort something out internally was > it as soon as they reached three mappers per square kilometer? Last I recall from Montreal on this mailing list, they were saying they added about 2500 buildings per month by hand. So they should be done within 20 years. Maybe they've discussed more locally. --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing buildings in Canada
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 11:45, john whelan wrote: > I do know that a number of departments and agencies would like to use > buildings and although they can use the open data sources using OSM would be > more convenient. Then you can encourage these agencies to urge Statcan to improve the quality of their data. If we expect some volunteers to come up with a building squaring algorithm and implementation, surely an agency whose whole job is collecting and massaging data can do better. > I'm not sure what if anything is happening at the moment. Nothing. > My gut feeling is with three sources of data we'll see new mappers importing > in buildings without going through an import process. Are we content to let > that happen? It seems basically impossible to prevent this, and given the number of active editors in Canada who care about this, would be difficult to even detect this. That would make the question of whether we're content about it moot. That's the effect of strict import guidelines here - those who would like to keep to them usually give up, and those who don't care (or don't know) go ahead anyway. (See, for example, trees in London, Ont.) That works in Germany which has 3 nitpicking OSM editors per square kilometer to notice, less so in Canada. > Have whoever it was who was going to come up with a preprocessing plan done > so? There's been work towards this but my understanding is that it's far from complete and stalled. > Can we get a consensus about what to do next? I don't believe so. Sorry - you asked. Thanks, --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Saints in street names in Ontario
Hi all,
I have now made the edit at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_tagging_guidelines=revision=1907677=1898100
and I saw that Matthew has edited a few of the more prominent examples
already.
Thanks!
--Jarek
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 17:09, Matthew Darwin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It sounds fine for me.
>
> On 2019-09-10 7:54 a.m., john whelan wrote:
>
> Looks good to me and if Matthew has cast his eye over it and not spotted
> anything major then I think we can safely say Ottawa is happy with it.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019, 9:57 PM Pierre Béland via Talk-ca,
> wrote:
>>
>> Cela semble bien préciser, mais les collègues d'Ontario pourront mieux
>> répondre.
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>> Envoyé à partir de Yahoo Courriel sur Android
>>
>> Le lun., sept. 9 2019 à 3:11 PM, Jarek Piórkowski
>> a écrit :
>> Hi Pierre,
>>
>> (I responded via email at first, but realized one more thing, so
>> adding on and sending to talk-ca:)
>>
>> The proposed wiki addition does start with "In Ontario". However
>> thanks bringing this up, as I realized I forgot to account for parts
>> of Ontario where streets will be named in French - this change should
>> not apply to those.
>>
>> I am changing the suggested wording to:
>>
>> In parts of **Ontario** that primarily name streets in English,
>> street and road names containing initial "St." or "St" should only be
>> expanded to "Saint" when "Saint" is common usage for that street. To
>> be clear, this overrides the general rule
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29
>> for "St." which does not stand for "street". As with other names in
>> OSM, factors you might want to consider when determining common usage
>> include spellings posted on street signs ("on the ground" rule),
>> spellings used in local media, GeoBase street name data, and spellings
>> used by official municipal sources including open data datasets. See
>> discussion on talk-ca [0].
>>
>> Would this wording be fine for Ottawa and other bilingual areas, or am
>> I missing a pitfall?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Jarek
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 08:51, Pierre Béland wrote:
>> >
>> > Marek
>> >
>> > Ces instructions ne s'appliquent pas à toutes les provinces. Il faudrait
>> > donc indiquer sur la page wiki à quelles provinces elles s'appliquent
>> >
>> > Pierre
>> >
>> > Envoyé à partir de Yahoo Courriel sur Android
>> >
>> > Le lun., sept. 9 2019 à 2:51 AM, Jarek Piórkowski
>> > a écrit :
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'm following up on the thread about saints and lack thereof in street
>> > names from a couple of months ago (see archives [1] [2]).
>> >
>> > I would like to suggest the following wording added to Canadian
>> > tagging guidelines at
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Street_names
>> > :
>> >
>> >In Ontario, street and road names containing initial "St." or "St"
>> > should only be expanded to "Saint" when "Saint" is common usage for
>> > that street. To be clear, this overrides the general rule
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29
>> > for "St." which does not stand for "street". As with other names in
>> > OSM, factors you might want to consider when determining common usage
>> > include spellings posted on street signs ("on the ground" rule),
>> > spellings used in local media, GeoBase street name data, and spellings
>> > used by official municipal sources including open data datasets. See
>> > discussion on talk-ca [0].
>> >
>> > where [0] would be a link to this message/thread archive. (Comments on
>> > the wording and suggestions appreciated!)
>> >
>> > Is anyone opposed to this change?
>> >
>> > I have attempted to advertise/announce this proposed change. This was:
>> > - posted in this mailing list in March/April of this year (some quoted
>> > below, see list archives for more discussion)
>> > - I posted a note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1741334 in
>> > Toronto with a link to this thread (supportive responses from Kevo and
>> > DannyMcD)
>> > - on April 10, sent a message [2] with a link to the note to editors
>> >
Re: [Talk-ca] Saints in street names in Ontario
Hi Pierre,
(I responded via email at first, but realized one more thing, so
adding on and sending to talk-ca:)
The proposed wiki addition does start with "In Ontario". However
thanks bringing this up, as I realized I forgot to account for parts
of Ontario where streets will be named in French - this change should
not apply to those.
I am changing the suggested wording to:
In parts of **Ontario** that primarily name streets in English,
street and road names containing initial "St." or "St" should only be
expanded to "Saint" when "Saint" is common usage for that street. To
be clear, this overrides the general rule
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29
for "St." which does not stand for "street". As with other names in
OSM, factors you might want to consider when determining common usage
include spellings posted on street signs ("on the ground" rule),
spellings used in local media, GeoBase street name data, and spellings
used by official municipal sources including open data datasets. See
discussion on talk-ca [0].
Would this wording be fine for Ottawa and other bilingual areas, or am
I missing a pitfall?
Thanks,
--Jarek
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 08:51, Pierre Béland wrote:
>
> Marek
>
> Ces instructions ne s'appliquent pas à toutes les provinces. Il faudrait donc
> indiquer sur la page wiki à quelles provinces elles s'appliquent
>
> Pierre
>
> Envoyé à partir de Yahoo Courriel sur Android
>
> Le lun., sept. 9 2019 à 2:51 AM, Jarek Piórkowski
> a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I'm following up on the thread about saints and lack thereof in street
> names from a couple of months ago (see archives [1] [2]).
>
> I would like to suggest the following wording added to Canadian
> tagging guidelines at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Street_names
> :
>
> In Ontario, street and road names containing initial "St." or "St"
> should only be expanded to "Saint" when "Saint" is common usage for
> that street. To be clear, this overrides the general rule
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29
> for "St." which does not stand for "street". As with other names in
> OSM, factors you might want to consider when determining common usage
> include spellings posted on street signs ("on the ground" rule),
> spellings used in local media, GeoBase street name data, and spellings
> used by official municipal sources including open data datasets. See
> discussion on talk-ca [0].
>
> where [0] would be a link to this message/thread archive. (Comments on
> the wording and suggestions appreciated!)
>
> Is anyone opposed to this change?
>
> I have attempted to advertise/announce this proposed change. This was:
> - posted in this mailing list in March/April of this year (some quoted
> below, see list archives for more discussion)
> - I posted a note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1741334 in
> Toronto with a link to this thread (supportive responses from Kevo and
> DannyMcD)
> - on April 10, sent a message [2] with a link to the note to editors
> who were showing up as top editors on
> http://osmstats.neis-one.org/?item=countries=Canada
> (they aren't necessarily representative of the community, but it's
> really the closest we can reasonably do given our current tooling) [3]
> (no private message responses)
> - posted on OSM Canada Slack on 17 August
> https://osm-ca.slack.com/archives/CASP8UQNT/p1566053199044200
> (supportive responses from Matthew Darwin and Eric Geiler)
> - on August 27, sent a few more private messages to editors in top 50
> on the stats page who had done Ontario edits [4] (no private message
> responses)
>
> If you know of anyone else who might have a further opinion on this,
> please forward as possible.
>
> Thanks,
> --Jarek
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Saints in street names in Ontario
Hello,
I'm following up on the thread about saints and lack thereof in street
names from a couple of months ago (see archives [1] [2]).
I would like to suggest the following wording added to Canadian
tagging guidelines at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Street_names
:
In Ontario, street and road names containing initial "St." or "St"
should only be expanded to "Saint" when "Saint" is common usage for
that street. To be clear, this overrides the general rule
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29
for "St." which does not stand for "street". As with other names in
OSM, factors you might want to consider when determining common usage
include spellings posted on street signs ("on the ground" rule),
spellings used in local media, GeoBase street name data, and spellings
used by official municipal sources including open data datasets. See
discussion on talk-ca [0].
where [0] would be a link to this message/thread archive. (Comments on
the wording and suggestions appreciated!)
Is anyone opposed to this change?
I have attempted to advertise/announce this proposed change. This was:
- posted in this mailing list in March/April of this year (some quoted
below, see list archives for more discussion)
- I posted a note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1741334 in
Toronto with a link to this thread (supportive responses from Kevo and
DannyMcD)
- on April 10, sent a message [2] with a link to the note to editors
who were showing up as top editors on
http://osmstats.neis-one.org/?item=countries=Canada
(they aren't necessarily representative of the community, but it's
really the closest we can reasonably do given our current tooling) [3]
(no private message responses)
- posted on OSM Canada Slack on 17 August
https://osm-ca.slack.com/archives/CASP8UQNT/p1566053199044200
(supportive responses from Matthew Darwin and Eric Geiler)
- on August 27, sent a few more private messages to editors in top 50
on the stats page who had done Ontario edits [4] (no private message
responses)
If you know of anyone else who might have a further opinion on this,
please forward as possible.
Thanks,
--Jarek
[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2019-March/thread.html#9179
[2]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2019-April/thread.html#9262
[3] message contents were mostly as follows (a few were additionally
slightly customized, like noting an editor active in St. Thomas area):
Hi [username],
I am writing to you as an active mapper in Ontario. I have suggested a
guideline to not expand “St”/”St.” to “Saint” in Ontario when it is
signed as “St”/”St.” on the ground, so that for example St. Clair
Avenue in Toronto would not be “Saint Clair Avenue”. I would welcome
your comments. Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1741334
for more details and feel free to respond on the note or in a PM to
me.
(Apologies if you have already seen this on the mailing list -
usernames and mailing list names don’t always match so I messaged many
editors just to be safe.)
Thanks, –Jarek
[4] recipients on April 10: Bootprint, andrewpmk, Kevo, EzekielT,
Allan Sharpe, BlueJaysFan86, CamTGR, LogicalViolinist
[5] recipients on August 27: Undearius, zzptichka, DannyMcD, egli,
OttawaHiking, MaximusSayan
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 21:11, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm responding to the saints discussion I started last month. (Finally -
> sorry.)
>
> Question: does anyone identify as an Ontario mapper and opposes a
> resolution that in Ontario (except where overridden by more local
> communities as in Ottawa) we do not expand "St" or "St." to "Saint"?
> Sub-question: does anyone identify as a Toronto mapper and opposes a
> resolution that in Toronto we got by majority of city signs [1] and we
> do not expand "St" or "St." to "Saint" except where indicated by the
> Toronto official open data centrelines shapefile?
>
> I have meanwhile checked Toronto's open data and their shapefiles/DBF
> files [2] specify values like "St Andrew St" (Kensington Market), "St
> Annes Rd" (~Dufferin Grove), "St John's Rd" (Junction, conflicting
> with other sources on the apostrophe), and "St Clair Ave E". There is
> also a "Street Name Index" [3] which includes a list of abbreviations
> which does not feature "Saint" or its varieties and spells all "Saint"
> roads like "ST GEORGE ST" and "ST CLAIR AVE E", and has no roads
> starting with "SAINT" other than "SAINTFIELD AVE" and "SAINTSBURY SQ".
>
> Martin made the argument that "OSM database should use proper words"
> but this seems to me to be an etymology argument. Under my admitted
Re: [Talk-ca] Ïle d'Orléan
The routes that are blue on Cycle Map on ïle d'Orléans are not mapped as bike paths, but rather highway=secondary + bicycle=designated e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118535448 and a route=bicycle "lcn" or local cycle network https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2393203 On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 10:48, Martin Chalifoux wrote: > Je viens juste de faire le tour de l’île. Il y a zéro piste cyclable. On > peut y créer une route mais svp pas mettre de lane ou track. Il y en a pas > du tout. > > Martin Chalifoux > *E* martin.chalif...@icloud.com > *C* 514-233-9701 > > On Jul 8, 2019, at 09:25, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > I don't know if that is the case here, but I've also seen objects > straight-up missing from the cycle map layer. I think its import of new and > changed ways is sometimes buggy. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/43.64972/-79.41785=C is an > example I'm familiar with, > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/43.64580/-79.41198=C another > around the corner. In the latter case it's been 4 months since the missing > paths were edited. > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 09:12, Pierre Boucher wrote: > >> Bonjour à tous, >> >> Comment ce fait-il que l'ïle d'Orléans n'apparaît pas lorsqu'on affiche >> les pistes cyclables? >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/46.9266/-71.0239=C >> -- >> >> *Pierre Boucher* >> Ste-Thérèse (Québec) Canada >> -- >> >> *...Pensez à l'environnement avant d'imprimer ce courriel !.* >> ___ >> 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] English and French translation required for some road names
I would expect this to be the same as the many "1st Street", "Twenty Second Street", "16A Street", or "96 Avenue" we have in English Canada: we go by what is signed and the software adapts. Hardcoding a special case mapping "1e Avenue" within Québec to pronunciation "Première Avenue" would be quite a lot simpler than changing Québec's every way with that name in OSM. And while Montréal is quite bilingual (-ish), outside Montréal I don't think many people will be expecting to hear street names called out in English as well as French. --Jarek On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 07:41, Steven Abrams wrote: > > Hi all, I am working with Microsoft Research and we have an app called > Microsoft Soundscape (on iPhone only currently) for the Visually Impaired and > Blind communities. The app provides a 3D map experience and calls out to the > user several points of interest and road names, all based on OSM data. > In Canada we have noticed that in the French speaking cities and areas of > Quebec, that roads may be named "1e Avenue" or "1er Avenue". > I am assuming that this should be called out as "Première Avenue" in French > and "First Avenue" in English. Is this correct? > But I have noticed that there is no translation for both languages. > Is it possible for some local OSM mappers to consider providing these > translations so that apps can callout the names of roads accurately? i.e. a > user using the French Language & Voice settings would hear "Première" and > users using the English Language & Voice settings would hear "First"? > I have included a link to such a road where I have added the English > translation. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20443208 > What are the thoughts here? > Thanks > Steven > ___ > 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] Batiments - Fonctions orthogonales
Hi Pierre, Thanks for sending these out. Can you briefly confirm what the "building.geojson", "building_extring.geojson", "building_extring_orthogonal.geojson" files represent? I'm not really familiar with the terms, perhaps because I don't have much of a GIS or geometry background. Is the "extring" file only those buildings that don't have superfluous nodes? "extring_orthogonal" contains only those that are square and don't have superfluous nodes? I guess OSM data is used for easy testing? I remain very interested as to how the Statcan building footprints for that area look like when cleaned up - I hope for better accuracy than trying to estimate from low-res or off-vertical imagery. It doesn't help that Github GeoJSON preview evidently uses a super-old version of OSM data for base map... Thanks again, --Jarek On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 21:58, Pierre Béland via Talk-ca wrote: > > Voici des tests supplémentaires qui couvrent la zone proposée par Daniel > source https://github.com/jfd553/OrthogonalizingBuildingFootprint > > Les fichiers geojson suivants sont disponibles > https://github.com/pierzen/OQ_Analysis/blob/master/sql/test/geojson/oq_on_toronto_jarek_s2a_building.geojson > > https://github.com/pierzen/OQ_Analysis/blob/master/sql/test/geojson/oq_on_toronto_jarek_s2a_building_extring_orthogonal.geojson > > https://github.com/pierzen/OQ_Analysis/blob/master/sql/test/geojson/oq_on_toronto_jarek_s2b_building_extring.geojson > > https://github.com/pierzen/OQ_Analysis/blob/master/sql/test/geojson/oq_on_toronto_jarek_s2b_building_extring_orthogonal.geojson > > > > > > > > > > > Pierre > > > Le lundi 27 mai 2019 13 h 45 min 30 s UTC−4, Pierre Béland via Talk-ca > a écrit : > > > J'ai progressé dans le développement des fonctions pour orthogonaliser les > bâtiments. Ce n'est qu'une version préliminaire, incomplète, mais pour ceux > intéresés par ces développements, il y a déja sufffisamment de fonctions de > disponibles pour voir la progression et les défis que cela représente. > > J'ai transféré cette version préliminaire sur Github. La méthodologie est > relativement simple conceptuellement, mais il y a beaucoup d'obstacles à > opérationnaliser avec les outils actuels. > Une fonction de rotation permet la rotation d'un coté de bâtiment pour rendre > orthogonal l'angle avec le segment précédent. Un pivot central au centre du > segment est utilisé. Cette méhode peut être rafinée de multiples façons. > Mais c'est un début. > > Je regarde toujours la possibilité d'utiliser les fonctions topologiques pour > éviter des croisements de bâtiments. > > Je vais aussi ajouter de la documentation supplémentaire, et décrire la > méthode en créant une page wiki dans le répertoire github. > > N'hésitez pas à commenter ces développements. > > voir > Fonctions PostgreSQL-PostGIS Orthogonalisation > https://github.com/pierzen/OQ_Analysis/tree/master/sql/Orthogonal > > échantillons et tests > https://github.com/pierzen/OQ_Analysis/tree/master/sql/test > > résultats fichiers geojson > https://github.com/pierzen/OQ_Analysis/tree/master/sql/test/geojson > > > Pierre > ___ > 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] MAPS.ME Changeset
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 12:13, Clifford Snow wrote: > A MAPS.ME user added 66 attractions [1] in a changeset that included > Vancouver, Montreal and Vermont. While I visit Vancouver I'm not familiar > with any of them. I left a changeset comment that has been replied to in the > last 16 hours. Another user suggested reverting them. > > Can someone local check if this is a valid edit? > > [1] https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70165015 Most of the tourist=attraction are miscategorized. Some might be worth recovering and retagging/amending existing tagging (https://osm.org/node/6468310098, https://osm.org/node/6468319685, https://osm.org/node/6468310088, or https://osm.org/node/6468310090 if it's not in wrong location due to maps.me placing it in the middle of the way), some probably not (https://osm.org/node/6468310096, https://osm.org/node/6468287086), some duplicate existing tagging (https://osm.org/node/6468287094). So basically like most of other maps.me edits. --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Open Data for Airdrie AB
IANAL but as I understand it, you would have to have them release the data as public domain, under CC0, or under Open Database License (the latter is the OSM license). I don't think something like "permission for use in OpenStreetMap" would be sufficient, as the OSM licensing is intended to also allow use of OSM data in other projects. Some links: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#2b._XYZ_Organisation_has_data_for_free_download_under_licence_N._Can_I_use_it_in_OSM.3F https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility --Jarek On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 11:56, Joshua Kenney wrote: > > If I can obtain explicit permission from the city, would I still need to > wait for the LWG approval? > > --Joshua > > On 2019-04-22 16:03, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Hi Joshua, > > > > Welcome to OSM, and thank you for your contributions! > > > > To answer your first question: the non-building data sets (parks, > > address points, bus stops, etc) are not currently importable without > > further effort: we would have to get that exact licence (with text > > including "City of Airdrie") approved by the OSM Licensing Working > > Group. I don't know if the LWG would object to the attribution > > requirements, possibly not, but the approval itself might take quite a > > while anyway, as lawyer things don't move fast. > > > > --Jarek > > > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 15:42, Joshua Kenney wrote: > >> Hello everybody! > >> Relatively new mapper here. I've been working on mapping my home town, > >> and a couple of other places I've been, for the past 3 or 4 months. > >> > >> I have found that my city of Airdrie, AB has a number of datasets > >> available under an Open Data Licence: > >> > >> http://data-airdrie.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/our-open-licence > >> The licence terms look straight forward enough, are there any additional > >> steps I need to take to confirm compatibility with OSM? > >> > >> One of the datasets includes building footprints. Would importing that > >> get in the way of the import of the national data? Where can I access the > >> national data to compare the quality? > >> > >> --Joshua > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> 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] Open Data for Airdrie AB
Hi Joshua, Welcome to OSM, and thank you for your contributions! To answer your first question: the non-building data sets (parks, address points, bus stops, etc) are not currently importable without further effort: we would have to get that exact licence (with text including "City of Airdrie") approved by the OSM Licensing Working Group. I don't know if the LWG would object to the attribution requirements, possibly not, but the approval itself might take quite a while anyway, as lawyer things don't move fast. --Jarek On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 15:42, Joshua Kenney wrote: > > Hello everybody! > Relatively new mapper here. I've been working on mapping my home town, and a > couple of other places I've been, for the past 3 or 4 months. > > I have found that my city of Airdrie, AB has a number of datasets available > under an Open Data Licence: > > http://data-airdrie.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/our-open-licence > The licence terms look straight forward enough, are there any additional > steps I need to take to confirm compatibility with OSM? > > One of the datasets includes building footprints. Would importing that get > in the way of the import of the national data? Where can I access the > national data to compare the quality? > > --Joshua > > > > ___ > 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
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 13:10, Begin Daniel wrote: > There is actually no standard “code” available since I use FME > (www.safe.com). It is a proprietary ETL application and all operations are > done using “transformers” (https://www.safe.com/transformers/). I can provide > you with the workbench I developed (a bunch of linked transformers) but you > need a license to run it. This is why I tried to describe the operations I > run on the data in the wiki. > > As you did, people may send me coordinates (bounding box) of an area they > know well. I’ll process the area and send the results back in OSM format. > Please, be reasonable on the amount of data to process ;-) Thanks Daniel. Let me know how it looks then! Coming from an open-source background, the process is unusual to me, and I have questions about scalability - will you be able to process and provide updated data files for all of Canada then? - but if others are comfortable with it then I won't object. Some general thoughts regarding tooling as raised upthread: I was initially excited to see building footprints data as they help two quite distinct purposes: 1. they provide a mostly-automatic source of geometries for the millions of single-family houses that wouldn't be mapped in the next decade otherwise 2. they might provide a corrected and fairly accurate source of geometries in heavily-built-up areas, where GPS signal is not that reliable and it can be really difficult to get sufficiently accurate geometries from imagery, whether because it's not sufficiently high-resolution, two sets of imagery with conflicting offsets (Bing and Esri are the two best sets in Toronto, and they're off by about 1-2 m on north-south axis from each other - that's not something I can check with a consumer-grade GPS so I'm left guessing as to which is true), or non-vertical imagery (I can count the floors on supposedly top-down imagery in some cases). From what I saw, imports in the GTHA initially focused on the first case, and I think the Tasking Manager setup was mostly sufficient for those - where there is nothing currently on the map, or a few simple 2D geometries, a 4 sq km area can feasibly be done in under an hour. However, as raised by others, I would really want the working squares in Old Toronto for example to be no more than 500 m x 500 m, or no more than 1 km x 1 km in St. Catharines. I would _love_ to have the geometries to manually compare and adjust the 3D buildings already existing in the area, but it will be much slower. --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 11:58, Begin Daniel wrote: > a first version of the cleaning tool is now functional. > > At this point, the tool is built to remove extra vertices, orthogonalize > building footprints (when possible) and identify overlapped geometries. > Details about the application are found in Canada Building Import discussion > page … > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Canada_Building_Import#Quality_Assurance_details > > So far, Tim has looked at the result for Montréal (Import data) and Pierre > for Toronto (OSM data). I understand from their comments that the tool > generally does its job well. However, both whish to see more functionality > added to the application (editing automation). > > Before going further, I would like to know if the community is at ease with > the Pierre and Tim assessment, and is ready to go further in the import > process discussion. I ask that because going further with editing automation > will definitely be more complex, without any guarantee about the results. Hi Daniel, Thank you for your work on this. Are you able to share the application or code in any way? I did not see any links in the talk page. It is really not possible to say much without looking at what the code does with some of the buildings with geometries I'm familiar with. Alternatively shall we send you over an area we're familiar with and you could send over the results of the tool? But I am concerned that would scale really poorly. To give a concrete example, I would be curious about the output of the tool for area 43.6450,-79.4071,43.6358,-79.4289 - I know that the geometries already in OSM for the area are partially inaccurate or overly simplified, so I'm curious how the processed import data looks. Thanks again, --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Toronto appreciation
Hi Martijn, I am around tomorrow afternoon. Where roughly will you be? If you have a Meeetup.com account you can also try sending a message in https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Toronto as some people there might be interested as well! (sending to the list so others now meetup group has been pointed out) --Jarek On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 17:07, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > Hi all, and Toronto mappers in particular. > I am currently visiting Toronto and using OSM extensively to get around using > maps.me and the OSM web site mainly. > The level of detail and completeness are amazing, a big thanks to all Toronto > mappers. > I didn’t know about PATH, the level=-1 pedestrian infrastructure, which seems > to be well mapped also. Amazing. > If any of you are around, I have some time tomorrow in the afternoon, if you > want to get a coffee or a beer. > Martijn > ___ > 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] Saints in street names in Ontario
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] Saints in street names in Ontario
Hi all, A couple of months back we established a consensus [1] that "St." in Canadian English city names should not be expanded. I have been thinking of having the same for street names, and would like to ask people's opinions. My main motivation is St. Clair Avenue in Toronto. Every city source I could find and every street sign I saw in Mapillary says "St. Clair" or "St Clair". The TTC stations and routes are consistently "St Clair". The City uses "St. Clair Avenue West" in official documents like [2]. Geobase in Toronto has "St Clair Avenue West" , "St Clarens Avenue", and "St Helens Avenue". Currently most of the street is named "Saint Clair Avenue West/East" in OpenStreetMap, but this is changed for some parts of the road every now and then. As a local mapper I would say that "St. Clair Avenue West" is the full name. Unlike with "Av", "Ave", "W", the "St" in "St Clair" is IMO not an abbreviation. Across the Golden Horseshoe names starting with "St. " or "St " seem to be a bit more common [3] than "Saint" [4], I gather the acronym-expanders have not looked as much outside of Toronto. Would we have Ontario community consensus for a statement along the lines of: "Where "St." or "St" is normally used in the full street name, it should not be expanded to "Saint" even if pronounced so"? (I don't know what the naming conventions are in other provinces, so I focus on Ontario for now. Apologies for being Ontario-centric, but I don't know of a better venue that is Ontario-specific. I'll post links to this message in wiki talk pages for Ontario, WikiProject_Canada, and Canadian_tagging_guidelines.) As part of my checks I also looked at London UK, which I gather might be the most-intensively-mapped English-speaking city. (Recommendations for better-mapped English-speaking cities welcome). Searching for "St." in road names [5], it has street names for bigger streets like "St. John Street" and "St. Pancras Way"; [6] has name="St. Paul's Road" + not:name="Saint Paul's Road" and has had so for 5 years. Compare with searching for "Saint" [7] which also has some hits, suggesting that both can be valid depending on what is signed and used. (Or maybe it's just inconsistent.) [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Municipality_Names [2] https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-92339.pdf [3] https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/H1M [4] https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/H1P [5] https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GPh [6] https://osm.org/way/230843467 [7] https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GPi Thanks, --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec
IMO the huron/hamptonavemapper import is quite clearly in active disagreement with the import suspension - while I could believe that one user could overlook clicking on the wiki link in their changeset messages just once and seeing the bold "on hold", setting up a brand new similarly named account on February 15, 2019 and immediately starting to import suggests they know what they're doing. And it's not like one ultimately _needs_ the tasking manager to insert the data. The question is what are we going to do about it? Are you going to speak for Alberta and BC in opposing this import, Nate? That's defensible but also debatable. --Jarek On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 21:12, Nate Wessel wrote: > > I would suggest, again, that the tasking manager for this import be locked or > taken down if that is not possible. One good way to stop people from > importing when we don't have consensus is to not make it so easy for them. > Indeed, I would find it plausible if these people said they didn't even know > the import was paused - their evidence: that the tasking manager is still > active! > > Best, > > Nate Wessel > Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning > NateWessel.com > > On 3/14/19 7:42 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > The changeset comment messages link to the Stats Canada import plan on > the OSM wiki. > > I missed it but there were also some edits in Alberta. Quebec edits I > saw were only a couple, outside of Quebec. > > http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/148 has also been updated, and the > Alberta tasks. > > It does raise the point that with a country this large, with editor > community this sparse, there are very few ways to enforce or police a > countrywide consensus, or even arrive at one. Maybe BC mappers like > the import, square angles or no? (Does anyone go to the Metrotown > Meetup?) > > --Jarek > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 19:36, john whelan wrote: > > Wicked lad importing without an import plan? > > Ask him nicely where the import plan for their imports is. > > Looks like a new mapper so may not know the rules. > > I think currently there are two sets of data that are licensed for import, > the Stats Can stuff and the Microsoft stuff. I haven't seen any import plan > for the Microsoft stuff but unfortunately it's probably fairly easy to import > on the Stats Can side my feeling is we need to work out who the locals are to > get buy in since Canada wide there is no consensus on what is acceptable. > After a request from a local group then I think that particular area can > proceed. > > Quebec I think is being organised by Tim. > > Thanks John > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 18:56, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Are people aware that there are buildings being imported by > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/huronavemapper (most recent 12 > hours ago) and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/hamptonavemapper > (most recent 5 days ago)? > > I notice the wiki still says the import is on hold. > > 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 > > ___ > 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 in BC and Quebec
The changeset comment messages link to the Stats Canada import plan on the OSM wiki. I missed it but there were also some edits in Alberta. Quebec edits I saw were only a couple, outside of Quebec. http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/148 has also been updated, and the Alberta tasks. It does raise the point that with a country this large, with editor community this sparse, there are very few ways to enforce or police a countrywide consensus, or even arrive at one. Maybe BC mappers like the import, square angles or no? (Does anyone go to the Metrotown Meetup?) --Jarek On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 19:36, john whelan wrote: > > Wicked lad importing without an import plan? > > Ask him nicely where the import plan for their imports is. > > Looks like a new mapper so may not know the rules. > > I think currently there are two sets of data that are licensed for import, > the Stats Can stuff and the Microsoft stuff. I haven't seen any import plan > for the Microsoft stuff but unfortunately it's probably fairly easy to import > on the Stats Can side my feeling is we need to work out who the locals are to > get buy in since Canada wide there is no consensus on what is acceptable. > After a request from a local group then I think that particular area can > proceed. > > Quebec I think is being organised by Tim. > > Thanks John > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 18:56, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> >> Are people aware that there are buildings being imported by >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/huronavemapper (most recent 12 >> hours ago) and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/hamptonavemapper >> (most recent 5 days ago)? >> >> I notice the wiki still says the import is on hold. >> >> 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
[Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec
Are people aware that there are buildings being imported by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/huronavemapper (most recent 12 hours ago) and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/hamptonavemapper (most recent 5 days ago)? I notice the wiki still says the import is on hold. Thanks, --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ongoing Canadian building import needs to be stopped, possibly reverted
nd the > next user adds and/or updates even more. Neither of those users on their own > could have added as much detail as all of their knowledge combined. > > Are we supposed to just wait for a user who can add every single building > with centimetre precision and every bit of detail simply because we can't? > No, of course not. We do the best we can and have other users who know more > than we do build on that. > > I fully endorse this import because I would love to see what it does for the > local communities that apparently need to figure this import out for > themselves. > > Cheers, > Kyle > > On Jan. 18, 2019 05:40, James wrote: > > As Frederik Ramm once said(sorry i'm paraphrasing from memory please don't > shoot me) There has never been a GO-Nogo for imports, you bring it up on the > mailing lists with reasonable delay, is there no objections(in this case no > one was saying anything about it for 2-3 weeks) then email the list that the > import would start. > > On Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, 12:59 a.m. Alan Richards > Along the lines of what Jarek said, sometimes silence just means tacit > acceptance, or that it's not that controversial. There's quite a bit of > government data here that is supposedly "open" but unavailable for OSM, so > I'm very glad Stats Can was able to find a way to collect municipal data and > publish it under one national license. I was surprised myself it hadn't got > more attention, but I'm firmly onboard with more imports if done with care. > Manually adding buildings - especially residential neighborhoods, is about > the most boring task I can think of, yet it does add a lot to the map. > > I'll admit I hadn't looked at the data quality myself, but I just did review > several task squares around BC and they look pretty good. Houses were all in > the right place, accurate, and generally as much or even more detailed than I > typically see. Issues seemed to be mostly the larger commercial buildings > being overly large or missing detail, but in general these are the buildings > most likely to be already mapped. To a large degree, it's up the individual > importer to do some quality control, review against existing object, > satellite, etc. If we have specific issues we can and should address them, > but if the data is largely good then I see no need to abort or revert. > > alarobric > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:41 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 21:46, OSM Volunteer stevea > wrote: > > Thanks, Jarek. Considering I am a proponent of "perfection must not be the > > enemy of good" (regarding OSM data entry), I think data which are "darn > > good, though not perfect" DO deserve to enter into OSM. Sometimes "darn > > good" might be 85%, 95% "good," as then we'll get it to 99% and then 100% > > over time. But if the focus on "how" isn't sharp enough to get it to 85% > > (or so) during initial entry, go back and start over to get that number up. > > 85% sounds arbitrary, I know, but think of it as "a solid B" which might > > be "passes the class for now" without failing. And it's good we develop a > > "meanwhile strategy" to take it to 99% and then 100% in the (near- or at > > most mid-term) future. This isn't outrageously difficult, though it does > > take patience and coordination. Open communication is a prerequisite. > > Thank you for this commitment. I wish others shared it. Unfortunately > the reality I've been seeing in OSM is that edits which are 90+% good > (like this import) are challenged, while edits which are 50+% bad > (maps.me submissions, wheelmap/rosemary v0.4.4 going to completely > wrong locations for _years_) go unchallenged or are laboriously > manually fixed afterward. > > --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 > > > ___ > 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] Ongoing Canadian building import needs to be stopped, possibly reverted
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 21:46, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > Thanks, Jarek. Considering I am a proponent of "perfection must not be the > enemy of good" (regarding OSM data entry), I think data which are "darn good, > though not perfect" DO deserve to enter into OSM. Sometimes "darn good" > might be 85%, 95% "good," as then we'll get it to 99% and then 100% over > time. But if the focus on "how" isn't sharp enough to get it to 85% (or so) > during initial entry, go back and start over to get that number up. 85% > sounds arbitrary, I know, but think of it as "a solid B" which might be > "passes the class for now" without failing. And it's good we develop a > "meanwhile strategy" to take it to 99% and then 100% in the (near- or at most > mid-term) future. This isn't outrageously difficult, though it does take > patience and coordination. Open communication is a prerequisite. Thank you for this commitment. I wish others shared it. Unfortunately the reality I've been seeing in OSM is that edits which are 90+% good (like this import) are challenged, while edits which are 50+% bad (maps.me submissions, wheelmap/rosemary v0.4.4 going to completely wrong locations for _years_) go unchallenged or are laboriously manually fixed afterward. --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ongoing Canadian building import needs to be stopped, possibly reverted
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 21:04, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: >> The import was discussed on talk-ca and in my opinion there was a consensus >> of opinion it should go ahead. The data comes from the municipalities of >> which there are some 37,000 separate ones in Canada. The idea of a single >> import plan was suggested on talk-ca by someone not involved rather than >> have 37,000 different import plans. Many municipalities are very small. > There was a serious dearth of reply, and nothing even approaching "consensus > of opinion," indicating (to me and likely others) that a nationwide import > did not have the wide, national consensus it must have to continue. John, > we're simply going to disagree about that, it seems. Especially in light of > the events in this desire/wiki/project going back to 2017, MUCH more > consensus ought to have been built. I kept my mouth largely shut at the > reboot two months ago, yet here we are. When no one is responding, sometimes it is because they are fine with the message as-is. I read it. I was fine with it. This isn't an Australian election. I must say I find the panic about imperfect building shapes is a bit amusing considering the very poorly manually-drawn sidewalks I've been seeing and having to fix in Toronto, or thousands of laneways having a descriptive "name" added by our corporate friends. Do we aim for perfect, or for good? Because if it's perfect, I see a _lot_ to be reverted or deleted. --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination
Yep, so in this case removing the name and keeping the ref on the junction node sounds appropriate. While we're at it, the service road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48154169 doesn't seem to show up on any of the current imagery in iD. Does it still exist? --Jarek On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 16:28, Pierre Béland wrote: > > Je disais précédemment > > Je ne sais pour les autres provinces, mais au Québec les no. de sorties > > correspondent aux bornes kilométriques de la route (ici 15 pour km 15). > > Il est plus informatif d'afficher le no de sortie (ref=15) > > > Ici c'est sortie 11pour km 11, et non 15 comme j'ai dit précédemment. Sur la > carte, la numérotation de la sortie était «noyée» sous le texte. > > > Pierre > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination
I have seen this used in Germany for "junction names", e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/30249931 is one of the exits making up "Frankfurter Kreuz" which is the major interchange near Frankfurt and has its own (quite extensive) Wikipedia page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Kreuz I don't know if naming interchanges is common in Quebec. The nearest thing to named interchanges I can think of off the top of my head in Ontario is the Basketweave on the 401. This example might be a bit of tagging for the renderer to get the exit name to show up on the default OSM.org layer. --Jarek On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 14:47, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > Hi, > > I just came across this > > https://www.evernote.com/l/AVCmW6jzawZAoqDxpQTxFydcW-0mCP1Lyqw > > The exit _link[0] has destination tagging that reflects what is on the exit > sign[1], which is correct. > But the junction node[2] also has the same destination name in its name tag. > Is there some special tagging case that I am missing or should the name tag > be removed in this case? > > Martijn > > [0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39158262#map=16/45.1090/-73.4694 > [1] http://openstreetcam.com/details/1153269/386/edit-osm > [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/147228435#map=16/45.1090/-73.4667 > > ___ > 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] sharrows
as explained in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right, "forward" is the same way that would apply if there was a oneway=yes. "The tag values (or key suffixes) forward and backward describe a direction along a way, but not a side of the way. The code forward means the direction in which the way is drawn in OpenStreetMap, while backward means the opposite direction. " On 14 July 2018 at 21:04, john whelan wrote: > Fine but how does one decide which is forward? > > Thanks John > > On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, 3:02 pm Jarek Piórkowski, wrote: >> >> you likely want >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right >> combined with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway >> >> something like cycleway:forward=shared_lane, cycleway:backward=lane >> >> On 14 July 2018 at 20:44, john whelan wrote: >> > Ottawa has been adding these on one side of the highway and a cycle lane >> > in >> > the other. >> > >> > How should they be mapped? >> > >> > Specifically how do you map the pure cycle lane in one direction and the >> > Sharrow in the other? >> > >> > Thanks John >> > >> > ___ >> > 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] sharrows
you likely want https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right combined with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway something like cycleway:forward=shared_lane, cycleway:backward=lane On 14 July 2018 at 20:44, john whelan wrote: > Ottawa has been adding these on one side of the highway and a cycle lane in > the other. > > How should they be mapped? > > Specifically how do you map the pure cycle lane in one direction and the > Sharrow in the other? > > Thanks John > > ___ > 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] Montréal: Inconsistency in Public Transportation Provider's Name
Hi all, Damien's question appears to be about nodes like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/438843513, which has name=Berri-UQAM, operator=Société de transport de Montréal. short_name=STM seems inappropriate here, we could do operator:short_name=STM or something but it seems a bit much. The nearby station https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26233453 has name=Jean-Drapeau, network=STM, operator=Société de transport de Montréal which seems like an attempt as good as we might get. Commuter rail station https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/548900549 has network=RTM, operator=Réseau de transport métropolitain which fits that scheme as well. Similar with a random bus line on North Shore https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3472432 Looking through map very casually I didn't see any operator=STM on the subway. I did see it on a bus line https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/270258 but changing it to network=STM and operator=Société de transport de Montréal seems like it'd be fine there IMO. To me "operator" looks a bit more little technical than the other tags, so to me it would be alright to use the longer more formal name. But I wouldn't edit-war anyone about it. I'd say run a query, see which is more common currently, ask people here (as you've done), then after a week change the minority tags to match. --Jarek On 11 July 2018 at 04:45, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > Hello Damien: > > I'm "meh, OK" with an operator=STM value, but I freely say I haven't checked > in completely with whomever you mean by "the minority." (I "haven't heard > of" any controversy one way or the other, STM or full-name. But that isn't > saying much on my part). I watch what's up with North American rail and it > seems that key-value pair is somewhere around the beginning of correct, at > least from my perspective, fwiw. Being right on it (there) you are way more > on it than I am. I'm sorta like a linguist here. > > However, OSM does have a short_name key and I'd be even better with > short_name=STM or alt_name=STM and operator=Société de transport de Montréal > if you want to get dotting-of-i and crossing-of-t about it. > > I mean, there are wiki pages on loc_name, nat_name, official_name, > short_name, alt_name and more, it's a slightly rich and deep topic in OSM and > in our wiki. I say STM is somewhere around alt_name or short_name. That is > one person's opinion. What happens, happens. I'm a guy typing words right > now, so, yeah. > > I also I notice when people get my name exactly right, as I appreciate that. > And look at that, both of us got "Société de transport de Montréal" exactly > right too (twice), making it a good candidate value for the name=* key. > > SteveA > California > >> On Jul 10, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Damien Riegel wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> I'm new to this list so please forgive me if this topic has already been >> discussed. >> >> In Montréal, the public transportation provider is the "Societé de transport >> de Montréal", more commonly known as STM. Some (the minority) nodes use the >> full name, all the others use the acronym. it would be great to get rid of >> that discrepancy. >> >> If I had to give my opinion on the matter, I'd say "STM" is more appropriate >> as almost everything is branded under the "STM" name (for instance the >> website is https://stm.info, their Facebook page is called "STM - Mouvement >> collectif"), so that's the name people use. I think that also explains why >> "STM" is way more common as operator value than the full name. >> >> >> Regards, >> Damien >> ___ >> 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] Question
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback! It helps a lot to have information from real
world users.
I looked into the data briefly. The data that _has been_ entered in
OpenStreetMap looks correct. However, much data is not available.
A brief explanation of what is happening:
Postal codes are potentially incorrect, but these are currently mostly
not tagged in OSM in Québec. Instead, a search engine called Nominatim
is guessing them from the surroundings. A particular problem that
happens often is that Nominatim takes in neighbourhood names and
postal codes by centre point, not by boundary. In many cases an
address is within one postal code, but closer to centre-point of
another. Compounding the problem is that many postal codes are not
entered at all, so the system guesses the nearest one it knows.
About the string "Neufchâtel-Est, Les Méandres, Québec, Québec, Québec
(Agglomération), Capitale-Nationale, Québec":
Nominatim will also throw in as many nearby neighbourhood and place
names as it knows, without trying to understand if it makes sense or
is duplicated. Here we have:
- nearest place=neighbourhood: Neufchâtel-Est
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3835239037
- nearest place=suburb: Les Méandres
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/309314795 (although this is
actually closer to the address than Neufchâtel-Est! But Nominatim
wants to have _a_ neighbourhood as well, and no nearer neighbourhood
is tagged)
- nearest place=city, admin_level=8: Québec
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/30915641
- nearest what it guesses to be "city boundary":
boundary=administrative, admin_level=8: Québec
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2319206
- and so on with "Québec (Agglomération)" at admin_level=6,
"Capitale-Nationale" at admin_level=5, the province at admin_level=4
These are not tagged on the address, they are pulled in from nearby
objects. So it's not OSM errors, though a missing neighbourhood might
be an OSM omission.
Basically the OSM search results are often made up by computers, and
only the information actually "tagged" is thought to be correct. For
example, for https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4974207123 we know
that: addr:housenumber=920, addr:street="Rue Noël-Carter",
amenity=school, name="Centre de formation professionnelle
Maurice-Barbeau". OpenStreetMap doesn't know what the postal code is,
and other systems will have to guess at it. Also note that computers
will struggle when one naturally searches for "CFP Maurice-Barbeau"
expecting to find the Centre de formation professionnelle.
Another problem is that exact addresses are often not entered, they
are entered as address ranges ("interpolations") within the block. For
example, the address range https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104093690
goes from 2945 to 2995 among odd numbers. However apps can struggle
with that: Maps.me for instance will give you a result for "2945 rue
de la Broussaille" but it doesn't understand that 2985 is between 2945
and 2995, and does not have any results for "2985 rue de la
Broussaille".
What we can do to help:
- realistically: tag bigger and more useful / more likely to be
searched for buildings with their own postal codes, and where a street
has only one postal code, enter it
- more work: lobby for the postal code data to be released on a free
license - the current system favours big players with lots of money
who can pay for the data
- much more work: map individual buildings and enter their street
numbers and postal codes, rather than depending on address
interpolations. However this should be lower priority as it would make
more sense to improve the apps' search to understand interpolations
I tested in OSMAnd (version 2.9.3, installed just now from Play Store
and downloaded Québec map) and it found the address "920, rue
Noël-Carter". When searching for "2985 rue de la Broussaille" it found
the 2945, rue de la Broussaille corner address, which is not exact but
in this case very close. However this particular address data hasn't
changed in a long time, so it seems unlikely that your OSMAnd data
would be out of date...
Potentially of interest for you: the app Maps.me is another app of
OpenStreetMap data with offline routing/GPS on Android. In the test,
it finds "920, rue Noël-Carter", though not "2985 rue de la
Broussaille". If you like, you could test it out to see if it works
better for you. It is free, although it has hotel and travel ads, and
I am guessing it might track your searches.
--Jarek
On 27 April 2018 at 23:00, Pier Luc wrote:
> Hello, I live in Quebec City. I tried to use OSMand (based on OSM) in my
> City using offline mode and the OBF file of the Province of Quebec. Every
> time I search an address it can not find it! Sometime it offer me other
> address, sometime not. It's like if only a tiny part of Quebec's address had
> been insert in Open Street Map. But, it's not exactly the case because is
> has more address in Open street Map website.
>
> Look at that example,
Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names
On 17 February 2018 at 00:03, OSM Volunteer stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Jarek Piórkowski <ja...@piorkowski.ca> wrote: >> With "street" in a street name, it's clear to most everyone that Pine St is >> an abbreviation and Pine Street is the correct unabbreviated Canadian >> English version. It is not clear to me that "Saint Catharines" is the >> correct unabbreviated version of the city's name. In fact it looks incorrect >> to me. > > Thank you, Jarek. However, I politely disagree that your logic of "it's > clear to most everyone that Pine St is an abbreviation..." holds up for > software logic (even as it might "to most everyone.") This is > well-established and the reasoning behind OSM's policy I noted previously. Hi Steve, Thanks for drawing the distinction. I think that automatic software manipulation of names (whether in OSM or elsewhere) is necessarily fraught with problems. It must be done carefully and would be best done on a limited set of fields. There are too many exceptions and unusual values to handle fully automatically. The series of articles "things programmers believe about names", "things programmers believe about addresses" come to mind. It makes some sense in Canadian English street names, which are 1) largely standardized and 2) by convention agglutinative - they have prefixes and suffixes and so on. Thus it might be desirable to replace "Pine Street" with "Pine St" or "Saint Clair Avenue West" with "St. Clair Ave W" for rendering or presentation in short fields. Even there, great care must be taken, or - to use a common example of a "weird" street name - "Avenue Road" might be incorrectly reduced to "Ave Rd". In St. Catharines there is a "South Service Road" which can be abbreviated to "S Service Rd", but also a "South Drive" which might make sense as "South Dr" but not as "S Drive". In Niagara-on-the-Lake there is a "East & West Line", which I invite any algorithm to make sense of. (I specify "Canadian English" as I'm not familiar with Canadian French names or with English conventions elsewhere - and that's before getting into areas with bilingual names.) As in the example given by others, the spelling is important to the cities of Saint John and St. John's. IMHO this should not be automatically modified by software. Thus we shouldn't change names that are correct for the sake of software. --Jarek ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names
With "street" in a street name, it's clear to most everyone that Pine St is an abbreviation and Pine Street is the correct unabbreviated Canadian English version. It is not clear to me that "Saint Catharines" is the correct unabbreviated version of the city's name. In fact it looks incorrect to me. --Jarek On Feb 16, 2018 23:37, "Tristan Anderson" <andersontris...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm going to make here to the unpopular argument that in OSM tagging "St." > should always be written as "Saint". > > I know that you will never see "Sault Sainte Marie" on a sign, map or > official document and that seeing it written like that looks weird and even > wrong to local residents. In much the same way when I started editing OSM, > "Pine Street" looked weird, even wrong, to me. After all, street suffixes > are abbreviated on every sign and map; even when they are referenced in > articles. I have since come to accept and embrace the unabbreviated street > suffix, even to the point writing them out in full in my day-to-day life, > such as when I enter in my home address. I think we can all agree that > there is nothing incorrect about Maple Boulevard, and by extension that an > abbreviation's ubiquity does not in and of itself make the full version > incorrect. > > There are a lot of streets that begin with Saint. In one neighbourhood of > Niagara Falls, for example, there is (using the names recognised by Canada > Post) a Saint Marys Avenue, St. John St, St Paul Avenue, St Patrick Avenue, > St. Peter Avenue, and Saint George Avenue. I doubt that whoever named > those streets intended for that specific combination of St/St./Saint and I > can be certain that the abbreviations were merely ever there out of > convenience, one that's made obsolete by digital maps not needing to cram a > bunch of street names onto limited space. I find it hard to see anybody > having a problem with beginning all six of these names with "Saint". > > The "St" abbreviation may particularly problematic for data consumers as > it could mean Street, Saint, or if you check out the Wikipedia > disambiguation page, dozens of other things. Sure it's obvious to a human > that there is no city called Street Thomas, but a computer might have a bit > of trouble there. And don't get me started on the absurdity that St is a > contraction, not an abbreviation. > > I'm not going to rush out and change any existing tagging but I think this > is one instance where rational thought needs to override tradition. > > From: OSM Volunteer stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> > Sent: February 16, 2018 4:03 PM > To: Jarek Piórkowski; talk-ca > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names > > > I stand corrected, thank you everybody. > > BTW I do my best not to abbreviate thinks like "DC" for District of > Columbia, but I now better understand that "St." in many cases has now > truly become the official name, abbreviation included. > > SteveA > > ___ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists. > openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-ca=02%7C01%7C% > 7C0929b2c013ed48ddd99b08d57580cc04%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435 > %7C1%7C0%7C636544118392215285=RLRrzWsO83vlhjicXTPgQumstpl4u% > 2FyhY3ciiFEmAuU%3D=0 > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Vancouver rapid transit stations - "Station" in name?
Hello, First post here, sorry if I mess anything up! A few months back I noticed that station names for Vancouver Skytrain rapid transit system (all lines) are inconsistent: 32 of them have "Station" in their name, but 23 don't, with little apparent pattern by line or location. Most of all I would like to make it consistent one way or the other - I hope that's not controversial. Which way is then the question. I made a note about this in downtown Vancouver near Granville station, but didn't get much response: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/858075 On the ground, signs on station entrances do include "Station", examples (1) (2) below. Signs at platforms do not include "Station", example (3). Other TransLink resources are not particularly consistent: as one example, network maps like (4) do not include "Station" but local station area maps like (5) do. Are there conventions on what format should be used - in Canada or in general in OSM? I couldn't really find anything concrete. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names seems inconclusive on whether it should include "Station". I saw a question (6) on help.osm.org which was specific to Hong Kong and in the end hinged more on existing consistency. Analogies from other cities: Toronto and Montreal have no "Station" in subway/metro station names. Calgary has no "Station" in its LRT names but Edmonton does. Seattle and Portland also have no "Station". Possibly the closest analogy, though far away in London, England, see (7) for example with photos: signs outside all tube stations have format "Goodge Street Station" / "South Kensington Station"; signs at platforms say "Goodge Street" / "South Kensington"; OSM tags name=Goodge Street / name=South Kensington. Personally I would prefer no "Station", so making the names like "Burrard", "Vancouver City Centre", "Nanaimo", "Inlet Centre". Does anyone or any resource disagree? Cheers, --Jarek (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vancouver_-_Burrard_Station_entrance_01.jpg (2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coquitlam_Central_Station_Exterior.jpg (3) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coquitlam_Central_station_(SkyTrain).jpg (4) http://infomaps.translink.ca/System_Maps/skytrain_bline_seabus_map.pdf (5) https://www.translink.ca/en/Schedules-and-Maps/SkyTrain/SkyTrain-Station-and-Elevator-Maps.aspx (6) https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/52852/railway-stationmetro-station-naming (7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodge_Street_tube_station ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
