Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
On 26/03/11 04:03, Samuel Dyck wrote: Let me clarify, will the so called tainted data still be up for the near future, or will I be spending my week preforming hectic Canvec imports to save street names I gathered with a pen and paper? It doesn't look good for me http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/?zoom=12lat=49.88177lon=-97.17517layers=B0. Please ignore Sam - there is no data removal planned for next week. I think he has confused the stages of the license change process - the next stage is to ask people to accept or decline the license before they can edit. It is not the point at which the license will change and problem data may have to be removed. It is not even the point at which people who decline will not be able to edit any more. More details about the implementation plan can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan As I understand things it is Phase 3 which we are close to entering, not Phase 5. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
Purposly delaying the inevetable... so i'll no longer be editing ... so all my edits should be considered 'spam' so then others can removed it. or I can accept the agreement and go and start removing all of my edits since i started. all edits that i have touched at any stage of edits should be removed. Would this be easier? cheers, Sam On 3/26/11, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 26/03/11 04:03, Samuel Dyck wrote: Let me clarify, will the so called tainted data still be up for the near future, or will I be spending my week preforming hectic Canvec imports to save street names I gathered with a pen and paper? It doesn't look good for me http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/?zoom=12lat=49.88177lon=-97.17517layers=B0. Please ignore Sam - there is no data removal planned for next week. I think he has confused the stages of the license change process - the next stage is to ask people to accept or decline the license before they can edit. It is not the point at which the license will change and problem data may have to be removed. It is not even the point at which people who decline will not be able to edit any more. More details about the implementation plan can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan As I understand things it is Phase 3 which we are close to entering, not Phase 5. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ -- --- Across Canada Trails - Beyond 2017 - The National Trails Network Victoria, BC Canada Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: 'Sam Vekemans' Member, CommonMap Inc. http://commonmap.org/ IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #CommonMap Also find us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
But per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_Updates/2011-03-07#ODbL_phase_3_delayed_due_to_Creative_Commons, phase 3 has been delayed. Or has this changed? Sam On 11-03-26 05:18 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: On 26/03/11 04:03, Samuel Dyck wrote: Let me clarify, will the so called tainted data still be up for the near future, or will I be spending my week preforming hectic Canvec imports to save street names I gathered with a pen and paper? It doesn't look good for me http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/?zoom=12lat=49.88177lon=-97.17517layers=B0. Please ignore Sam - there is no data removal planned for next week. I think he has confused the stages of the license change process - the next stage is to ask people to accept or decline the license before they can edit. It is not the point at which the license will change and problem data may have to be removed. It is not even the point at which people who decline will not be able to edit any more. More details about the implementation plan can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan As I understand things it is Phase 3 which we are close to entering, not Phase 5. Tom ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
On 26/03/11 16:12, Samuel Dyck wrote: But per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_Updates/2011-03-07#ODbL_phase_3_delayed_due_to_Creative_Commons, phase 3 has been delayed. Or has this changed? Those community updates are exactly that - written by a member of the community and not authoritative in any way. In this case I don't believe that what is written there is an accurate summary of the situation at all. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
So there is poor communication between the board and the community? I hate to argue, but the License change still has a large TODO notice next to the No option. This is a problem. Sam On 11-03-26 11:17 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: On 26/03/11 16:12, Samuel Dyck wrote: But per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_Updates/2011-03-07#ODbL_phase_3_delayed_due_to_Creative_Commons, phase 3 has been delayed. Or has this changed? Those community updates are exactly that - written by a member of the community and not authoritative in any way. In this case I don't believe that what is written there is an accurate summary of the situation at all. Tom ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
On 26/03/11 16:33, Samuel Dyck wrote: So there is poor communication between the board and the community? I hate to argue, but the License change still has a large TODO notice next to the No option. This is a problem. As I thought I had explained that community update was not a communication from the board or LWG or anybody else official so I'm not sure how you can read into it anything about communication between the board and the community. I have no idea what TODO notice you are talking about - obviously code changes will be needed to implement future phases of the implementation plan and I understand that those are in progress. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
*Decline*. You do not agree to the new OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms and, specifically, you refuse to re-license your existing contributions for use under the ODbL. (TODO: add more on what this means). Here. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F Stage 3 is is very late, and no reason is given as to why. As for the update, why is it not monitored? Sam On 11-03-26 11:36 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: On 26/03/11 16:33, Samuel Dyck wrote: So there is poor communication between the board and the community? I hate to argue, but the License change still has a large TODO notice next to the No option. This is a problem. As I thought I had explained that community update was not a communication from the board or LWG or anybody else official so I'm not sure how you can read into it anything about communication between the board and the community. I have no idea what TODO notice you are talking about - obviously code changes will be needed to implement future phases of the implementation plan and I understand that those are in progress. Tom ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
On 26/03/11 16:42, Samuel Dyck wrote: *Decline*. You do not agree to the new OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms and, specifically, you refuse to re-license your existing contributions for use under the ODbL. (TODO: add more on what this means). Here. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F I think that's just out of date, like so much in the wiki. New users signing up are sent to a different wiki page when they decline: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributor_Terms_Declined Stage 3 is is very late, and no reason is given as to why. I believe the main reason is because of the ongoing attempt to improve the contributor terms to deal with various issues which people raised with them. Unfortunately reworking them takes time because of the need to keep passing each draft over to the lawyers for review. As for the update, why is it not monitored? I don't know - maybe the board has established a Community Monitoring Group yet? Maybe you should suggest it to them? You seem to have me confused with somebody in authority ;-) Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
I see, my bad. I'm just a little frustrated about the lack of communication. I should say that I have already accepted the new terms (sorry Sam). On 11-03-26 11:48 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: On 26/03/11 16:42, Samuel Dyck wrote: *Decline*. You do not agree to the new OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms and, specifically, you refuse to re-license your existing contributions for use under the ODbL. (TODO: add more on what this means). Here. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F I think that's just out of date, like so much in the wiki. New users signing up are sent to a different wiki page when they decline: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributor_Terms_Declined Stage 3 is is very late, and no reason is given as to why. I believe the main reason is because of the ongoing attempt to improve the contributor terms to deal with various issues which people raised with them. Unfortunately reworking them takes time because of the need to keep passing each draft over to the lawyers for review. As for the update, why is it not monitored? I don't know - maybe the board has established a Community Monitoring Group yet? Maybe you should suggest it to them? You seem to have me confused with somebody in authority ;-) Tom ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
Dear Sam, Well, Sam (Vekemans) you are a man of your word. You mean what you say. Don't you? On 25 August 2010, you said, All my contributions to OpenStreetMap are released into the public domain... I grant anyone the right to use my contributions for any purpose [1] You mean that don't you? You said it. Surely, then you won't hesitate to accept the new CT and ODbL. Best regards, Richard [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User:Acrosscanadatrailsoldid=522835#License_Issue ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
I guess the OpenStreetMap Foundation's Map (odbl only) has not yet been started. Since the date of step 5 is 'to be determined'. So that's a good reason why i'm actively working on the alternative(s) :-) ... To get back on topic, I'll get back to this list once i have the rules.txt/.pl script and shp/.osm files available of the MLI park boundary data, since many would like to see this data on the various map APIs. cheers, Sam p.s. i'll probably be done it before step 5 roles around :-) On 3/26/11, Samuel Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: I see, my bad. I'm just a little frustrated about the lack of communication. I should say that I have already accepted the new terms (sorry Sam). On 11-03-26 11:48 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: On 26/03/11 16:42, Samuel Dyck wrote: *Decline*. You do not agree to the new OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms and, specifically, you refuse to re-license your existing contributions for use under the ODbL. (TODO: add more on what this means). Here. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F I think that's just out of date, like so much in the wiki. New users signing up are sent to a different wiki page when they decline: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributor_Terms_Declined Stage 3 is is very late, and no reason is given as to why. I believe the main reason is because of the ongoing attempt to improve the contributor terms to deal with various issues which people raised with them. Unfortunately reworking them takes time because of the need to keep passing each draft over to the lawyers for review. As for the update, why is it not monitored? I don't know - maybe the board has established a Community Monitoring Group yet? Maybe you should suggest it to them? You seem to have me confused with somebody in authority ;-) Tom -- --- Across Canada Trails - Beyond 2017 - The National Trails Network Victoria, BC Canada Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: 'Sam Vekemans' Member, CommonMap Inc. http://commonmap.org/ IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #CommonMap Also find us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
Thanks Sam. Now hopefully no one on the other boards will rip into me for daring to import. :) You might also want to look at the MLI provincial forest data and the other goodies on the admin. boundaries list. (I don't know what you are interested in). Sadly with the exception of the Winnipeg Transit, the City of Winnipeg doesn't believe in open data. Sam On 11-03-26 12:15 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote: I guess the OpenStreetMap Foundation's Map (odbl only) has not yet been started. Since the date of step 5 is 'to be determined'. So that's a good reason why i'm actively working on the alternative(s) :-) ... To get back on topic, I'll get back to this list once i have the rules.txt/.pl script and shp/.osm files available of the MLI park boundary data, since many would like to see this data on the various map APIs. cheers, Sam p.s. i'll probably be done it before step 5 roles around :-) On 3/26/11, Samuel Dycksamueld...@gmail.com wrote: I see, my bad. I'm just a little frustrated about the lack of communication. I should say that I have already accepted the new terms (sorry Sam). On 11-03-26 11:48 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: On 26/03/11 16:42, Samuel Dyck wrote: *Decline*. You do not agree to the new OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms and, specifically, you refuse to re-license your existing contributions for use under the ODbL. (TODO: add more on what this means). Here. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F I think that's just out of date, like so much in the wiki. New users signing up are sent to a different wiki page when they decline: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributor_Terms_Declined Stage 3 is is very late, and no reason is given as to why. I believe the main reason is because of the ongoing attempt to improve the contributor terms to deal with various issues which people raised with them. Unfortunately reworking them takes time because of the need to keep passing each draft over to the lawyers for review. As for the update, why is it not monitored? I don't know - maybe the board has established a Community Monitoring Group yet? Maybe you should suggest it to them? You seem to have me confused with somebody in authority ;-) Tom ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
Lol, that page is no longer valid. ... nor is accepting terms which keep in changing. ... and the Board has the power to unplug osm at any moment ... as well as ban list-serv users ... on any mailing list. :) Creating a new map, and a new wiki, where the Foundation controled all large edits would make for a much better map :). but I can take a hint. :-/ It would be more respectable if you (Richard Weait) were to 1st privatly, then directly publically, ask me to remove myself from this mailing list. cheers, sam On 3/26/11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Dear Sam, Well, Sam (Vekemans) you are a man of your word. You mean what you say. Don't you? On 25 August 2010, you said, All my contributions to OpenStreetMap are released into the public domain... I grant anyone the right to use my contributions for any purpose [1] You mean that don't you? You said it. Surely, then you won't hesitate to accept the new CT and ODbL. Best regards, Richard [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User:Acrosscanadatrailsoldid=522835#License_Issue -- --- Across Canada Trails - Beyond 2017 - The National Trails Network Victoria, BC Canada Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: 'Sam Vekemans' Member, CommonMap Inc. http://commonmap.org/ IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #CommonMap Also find us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
Re: On 25 August 2010, Sam Vekemans said on his wiki user page, All my contributions to OpenStreetMap are released into the public domain... I grant anyone the right to use my contributions for any purpose [1] [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User:Acrosscanadatrailsoldid=522835#License_Issue On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote: Lol, that page is no longer valid. No longer valid? You said it. Did you mean that when you said it? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.comwrote: Lol, that page is no longer valid. Well, the statement on it seems pretty unequivocal -- [PD data release ...] I grant anyone the right to use my contributions *for any purpose*, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. (Emphasis in original). ... nor is accepting terms which keep in changing. ... Sam, you don't strike me as the political type, but based on the statement which you wrote _and_ emphasized, you've granted all rights under any conditions. So what does it matter if the terms change on a minute by minute basis, really? and the Board has the power to unplug osm at any moment ... as well as ban list-serv users ... on any mailing list. :) Okay, I'm tired of this FUD crap. Really. While I'm not convinced the licence change is a great idea, the board or foundation or whatever doesn't own OSM, and can't unplug crap. What they _do_ control are a bunch of servers, and those servers are pulling together contributions from a number of people. Contributions from people like you, Sam. And like me. Could they ban people from a mailing list on a list-serv they host? Sure. They could even stop having anything to do with mapping. I think by now we understand you don't like the CT OdBL switchover. But you did have, until just over 2 months ago, a notice on your page that anyone could do whatever with your contributions, under _any_ conditions. OSM is the sum of it's contributors. I have yet to hear any critic of the CT/OdBL suggest something like OSM/cc (and/or OSM/pd etc) and do anything about it. Personally, if the tools allowed contributing to multiple forks, I'd do so. But instead of suggesting solutions and building tools, we hear talk of losing data and users, like that is the end of the world. 10 years ago, Governments would never give up data in any kind of sharing way. If you wanted to access their datasets, you usually paid and then abided by their licence. Now, many are releasing data under some kind of CC licence -- but just because there is a need to keep abreast of the times. Where will we be in 5 years? Who knows -- and I think that is the point. I have no doubt, if the board was to go rouge and unplug OSM, it would only take a short period of time for the OSM community to bring things back online. That's the power of open source -- no one person or entity controls the project. And if/when CT/OdBL becomes the law of the land here, someone might decide they can't continue under that regimen and take a copy of the data and keep it under the previous terms. No data or contributors lost -- just a new URL to know. And, the point is that _anyone_ can do that -- no permission or legal papers needed. So, again, what is the big deal, and why should people not contribute still? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
The other information of note is that Sam did not remove his release to PD until Febuary 2011.[1] My interpretation would be that any changeset uploaded by him in this time is released into the public domain. Therefore, it'd be acceptable to re-import any of his changesets as they are public domain. It's not possible to just undo a PD grant. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User:Acrosscanadatrailsoldi d=553498#License_Issue -Original Message- From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 11:36 AM To: Sam Vekemans Cc: d...@osmfoundation.org; board Board; Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries Re: On 25 August 2010, Sam Vekemans said on his wiki user page, All my contributions to OpenStreetMap are released into the public domain... I grant anyone the right to use my contributions for any purpose [1] [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User:Acrosscanadatrails; oldid=522835#License_Issue On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote: Lol, that page is no longer valid. No longer valid? You said it. Did you mean that when you said it? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
Assuming the dataset clears legal, my preferred way of converting shapefiles to osm is using ogr2osm [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ogr2osm]. You get to write your own tag filters in Python (two samples are provided in the translations directory), as long as you're not doing any complicated automated editing of ways or some such. Last time I used ogr2osm, it wasn't putting version numbers into the output files, so they're not technically API0.6 compatible (Osmosis won't accept them, but JOSM will). It should do just what you need. Adam On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Samuel Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone The Canvec data for MB provincial park boundaries is horribly inaccurate and this bothers me greatly. The government of Manitoba offers good boundary data and a bunch of other cool stuff though the Manitoba Lands Initiative, which I believe we can use, but I've never converted Shapefiles to an API 0.6 compatible osm file (or at all really). How would I best do this? Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
I prefer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ogr2osm to do the conversions. To convert you have to write a python function that maps the shapefile tagging to osm tagging. This is not technically very hard, but mapping to osm tags is very easy to get wrong. If you're using Windows, I'd suggest using VirtualBox and Ubuntu to run it. -Original Message- From: Samuel Dyck [mailto:samueld...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 12:12 PM To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries Hi Everyone The Canvec data for MB provincial park boundaries is horribly inaccurate and this bothers me greatly. The government of Manitoba offers good boundary data and a bunch of other cool stuff though the Manitoba Lands Initiative, which I believe we can use, but I've never converted Shapefiles to an API 0.6 compatible osm file (or at all really). How would I best do this? Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
I'm using an Ubuntu derived distro, so I should be good. Tyler converted the MLI building data and has been importing it into OSM already. I've read thought the terms, do I need to clear a import with someone? Sam On 11-03-25 03:32 PM, Paul Norman wrote: I prefer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ogr2osm to do the conversions. To convert you have to write a python function that maps the shapefile tagging to osm tagging. This is not technically very hard, but mapping to osm tags is very easy to get wrong. If you're using Windows, I'd suggest using VirtualBox and Ubuntu to run it. -Original Message- From: Samuel Dyck [mailto:samueld...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 12:12 PM To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries Hi Everyone The Canvec data for MB provincial park boundaries is horribly inaccurate and this bothers me greatly. The government of Manitoba offers good boundary data and a bunch of other cool stuff though the Manitoba Lands Initiative, which I believe we can use, but I've never converted Shapefiles to an API 0.6 compatible osm file (or at all really). How would I best do this? Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
Hi, The National Parks data will be removed from the osm api next friday, as it will be considered 'tainted data' since the person who uploaded the data doesn't agree to the new contributor terms. This helps, as it makes it easier to add in the Manitoba parks data. Since knowone volunteered, the conversion script for the MLI data will be availbale on github :) and the shape files on koordinates.com Soon(TM) cheers, sam On 3/25/11, Samuel Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone The Canvec data for MB provincial park boundaries is horribly inaccurate and this bothers me greatly. The government of Manitoba offers good boundary data and a bunch of other cool stuff though the Manitoba Lands Initiative, which I believe we can use, but I've never converted Shapefiles to an API 0.6 compatible osm file (or at all really). How would I best do this? Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- --- Across Canada Trails - Beyond 2017 - The National Trails Network Victoria, BC Canada Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: 'Sam Vekemans' Member, CommonMap Inc. http://commonmap.org/ IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #CommonMap Also find us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
Thanks Sam, that saves me a lot of work. Is all the tainted data being removed Friday, or just yours? Sam On 11-03-25 10:29 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote: Hi, The National Parks data will be removed from the osm api next friday, as it will be considered 'tainted data' since the person who uploaded the data doesn't agree to the new contributor terms. This helps, as it makes it easier to add in the Manitoba parks data. Since knowone volunteered, the conversion script for the MLI data will be availbale on github :) and the shape files on koordinates.com Soon(TM) cheers, sam On 3/25/11, Samuel Dycksamueld...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone The Canvec data for MB provincial park boundaries is horribly inaccurate and this bothers me greatly. The government of Manitoba offers good boundary data and a bunch of other cool stuff though the Manitoba Lands Initiative, which I believe we can use, but I've never converted Shapefiles to an API 0.6 compatible osm file (or at all really). How would I best do this? Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
That is upto the OpenStreetMap Foundation to decide on what todo, as they will effectivelly 'own' all the rights to the data, including all tainted data. We (as a community) do not have a say in this matter, unfortunatly. cc'd the lists, it's up to them to reply back. cheers, sam On 3/25/11, Samuel Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Sam, that saves me a lot of work. Is all the tainted data being removed Friday, or just yours? Sam On 11-03-25 10:29 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote: Hi, The National Parks data will be removed from the osm api next friday, as it will be considered 'tainted data' since the person who uploaded the data doesn't agree to the new contributor terms. This helps, as it makes it easier to add in the Manitoba parks data. Since knowone volunteered, the conversion script for the MLI data will be availbale on github :) and the shape files on koordinates.com Soon(TM) cheers, sam On 3/25/11, Samuel Dycksamueld...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone The Canvec data for MB provincial park boundaries is horribly inaccurate and this bothers me greatly. The government of Manitoba offers good boundary data and a bunch of other cool stuff though the Manitoba Lands Initiative, which I believe we can use, but I've never converted Shapefiles to an API 0.6 compatible osm file (or at all really). How would I best do this? Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- --- Across Canada Trails - Beyond 2017 - The National Trails Network Victoria, BC Canada Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: 'Sam Vekemans' Member, CommonMap Inc. http://commonmap.org/ IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #CommonMap Also find us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
Let me clarify, will the so called tainted data still be up for the near future, or will I be spending my week preforming hectic Canvec imports to save street names I gathered with a pen and paper? It doesn't look good for me http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/?zoom=12lat=49.88177lon=-97.17517layers=B0. Sam Dyck On 11-03-25 10:56 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote: That is upto the OpenStreetMap Foundation to decide on what todo, as they will effectivelly 'own' all the rights to the data, including all tainted data. We (as a community) do not have a say in this matter, unfortunatly. cc'd the lists, it's up to them to reply back. cheers, sam On 3/25/11, Samuel Dycksamueld...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Sam, that saves me a lot of work. Is all the tainted data being removed Friday, or just yours? Sam On 11-03-25 10:29 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote: Hi, The National Parks data will be removed from the osm api next friday, as it will be considered 'tainted data' since the person who uploaded the data doesn't agree to the new contributor terms. This helps, as it makes it easier to add in the Manitoba parks data. Since knowone volunteered, the conversion script for the MLI data will be availbale on github :) and the shape files on koordinates.com Soon(TM) cheers, sam On 3/25/11, Samuel Dycksamueld...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone The Canvec data for MB provincial park boundaries is horribly inaccurate and this bothers me greatly. The government of Manitoba offers good boundary data and a bunch of other cool stuff though the Manitoba Lands Initiative, which I believe we can use, but I've never converted Shapefiles to an API 0.6 compatible osm file (or at all really). How would I best do this? Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries
I'd suggest doing a conversion and posting a .osm file somewhere so we can see the proposed tagging. -Original Message- From: Samuel Dyck [mailto:samueld...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 7:40 PM To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries I'm using an Ubuntu derived distro, so I should be good. Tyler converted the MLI building data and has been importing it into OSM already. I've read thought the terms, do I need to clear a import with someone? Sam On 11-03-25 03:32 PM, Paul Norman wrote: I prefer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ogr2osm to do the conversions. To convert you have to write a python function that maps the shapefile tagging to osm tagging. This is not technically very hard, but mapping to osm tags is very easy to get wrong. If you're using Windows, I'd suggest using VirtualBox and Ubuntu to run it. -Original Message- From: Samuel Dyck [mailto:samueld...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 12:12 PM To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries Hi Everyone The Canvec data for MB provincial park boundaries is horribly inaccurate and this bothers me greatly. The government of Manitoba offers good boundary data and a bunch of other cool stuff though the Manitoba Lands Initiative, which I believe we can use, but I've never converted Shapefiles to an API 0.6 compatible osm file (or at all really). How would I best do this? Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
