Re: [Talk-ca] Building Footprint Upload to OSM

On 2018-03-07 09:08 PM, Steve Singer wrote: > > It is my understanding that the act of substitution is enough of a > change to require the LWG to need to look at it. That's correct, Steve. I clarified the Ottawa import page a little: > The OSMF Licensing Working Group determined in their

Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 121, Issue 6

On 2018-03-02 11:53 PM, keith hartley wrote: > > Scruff - thanks for the insight on the license, would explicit > permission from them for this project work? or does the license null > it? It's supposed to be based off the national open data license but > is highly modified. oh autocorrect and

Re: [Talk-ca] Brandon licensing

On 2018-03-03 11:59 AM, john whelan wrote: > > I assume you're not Canadian. Umm, Steve is one of the longest-standing Canadian OSM contributors. I think he's the admin of talk-ca too … > All data released through > their Open Data portal is under their licence which has been approved by > the

Re: [Talk-ca] Manitoba buildings, addresses and high school work

On 2018-02-28 11:59 AM, James wrote: > Before Scruss comes out and says it: … thanks, James! Been busy with the new job. > After license is approved … I'm not a lawyer, but the Brandon licence looks especially troublesome. It's not based on any other licence I've seen. Most worryingly, it

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names (Jarek Piórkowski)

On 2018-02-19 05:08 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Have you passed by talk-gb? They have a fair amount of "St" names and > some authority as to how to do things in OSM. The UK has Bury St Edmunds, Chapel St Leonards, Lytham St Annes, Ottery St Mary, St Andrews, St Anne, St Austell, St Blazey,

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names in Ontario

On 2018-02-18 11:04 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > >   2 Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (Stouffville) Like so many post-Amalgamation towns, Whitchurch-Stouffville is the official name (http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique/FDOLC). There are some real doozies out there:

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i - Solving the licensing issues

On 2018-02-08 08:39 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: > > OSM resembles ordnance survey as was part of the original raison > d'etre When it started in the UK, but that does not preclude the > possibility of incorporating administrative boundaries such as wards, > and less formal boundaries such as

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

On 2018-02-05 05:17 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > > use the letters instead of numbers "+1-555-GOT-BEER" I'd suggest mapping these to the numbers BUT international phone pads have a superset of what we use here (7 has Q and 9 has Z) and older phones may not be consistent with what we assume now.

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

On 2018-02-05 04:44 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > I don't know why people use phone=* vs contact:phone=* Because it's the default in most editors, and it's shorter. I'd prefer it over contact:phone, because that's a needless namespace. Also, this:

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i OSM Distributed Model and Education

On 2018-02-02 06:06 PM, john whelan wrote: > > It would be useful if someone could produce a sample in R that takes a > .osm file and counts the buildings. R might be rather overkill: grep "k='building'" file.osm | wc -l One might have to do some clever trickery around buildings that are

Re: [Talk-ca] using image recognition to create building foot prints.

On 2018-01-29 04:37 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > > OSM is delighted to receive building data in Canada, truly we are. > (Provided they are high-quality data). I have heard the process of > entering data into OSM, especially "bulk import" OD (which must match > license compatibility against

Re: [Talk-ca] using image recognition to create building foot prints.

On 2018-01-29 03:15 PM, john whelan wrote: > ·*NRCan is working on a methodology to extract building > footprints, including topographic elevation and height attributes, > from LiDAR > > * Traditionally OSM has not been happy with this sort of thing. > The accuracy can be poor. If you

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

On 2018-01-28 04:21 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > > Here is the licence (Federal): > http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada Here are some of the problems with that licence, in as many other people's word's as possible: * Like the OGL-UK, it doesn't deal with third-party rights.

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

On 2018-01-28 09:16 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > Halifax also looks like it grants explicit permission. still needs an approved import procedure and approaching LWG for approval - so it's not good to go by any means ___ Talk-ca mailing list

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

On 2018-01-28 05:19 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > > PLEASE, I ask others to double- or triple- or multiple-check me here! Do > these (local licenses in Canada) reflect the current state of reality? We > (here in talk-ca) believe they do, we (OSM) welcome any updates directly to > the

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

On 2018-01-28 08:22 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > I am wondering if I should have them in the format of "+1 999 > 555 1234" or "+1-999-555-1234".    If there is no existing preference > adopted in OSM Canada, I will use the latter to cleanup the > non-compliant phone numbers. > > Comments? Please

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

On 2018-01-26 09:56 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > > What I did was to "back-populate" the list of "approved" (by whom? when? > how did these get here?) list of Canadian cities from > https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities into OSM's > BC2020 wiki. These are very

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

On 2018-01-26 09:42 PM, john whelan wrote: > I'm under the impression that Ottawa was the first city to move to the > Open Data 2.0 licence created by Treasury Board. It still took some quick letter-writing/e-mail by James and some emergency grovelling by me to the OSMF Licensing group to get it

[Talk-ca] Burnaby, BC: community map project

I saw a flyer when I was in Burnaby this past week for a call for volunteers to develop a community map. I wasn't able to keep a copy (and there's nothing on burnaby.ca about it) but it looked like the city was wanting to crowdsource a local map of facilities and points of interest. I might be

Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 10

On 2018-01-25 04:00 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > > The other wiki (linked to in the "main" BC2020i wiki's "Inventory of > Current Building Data Sets" section): > https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020/building_OD_tables Note that the licence compatibility column

Re: [Talk-ca] Disconnected addresses

On 2017-10-31 06:37 PM, James wrote: > not sure what that format is, but it's completely useless, need so much > processing, might as well just fix them via OSMI what, the Shapefile that Martin linked to? Anyway, I took a look at some of the problems in my neighbourhood. A lot date back to

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Canada 2020 OSMGeoWeek Mapathons

Hi Julia > I would like to know if you have any suggestions on > cities/towns/communities in Canada to focus on, particularly rural > regions that are not mapped and have high resolution imagery. I'd be pleasantly surprised if there was much intersection between "rural" and "high-resolution

Re: [Talk-ca] OSM Canada & State of the Map US: Oct 20-22

On 2017-09-27 05:49 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > Hi, > > Are any Canadian folks going to State of the Map US October 20-22 > https://2017.stateofthemap.us/ Nope. Wish I could afford it. > During the conference, I would like to have a discussion about turning > the informal

Re: [Talk-ca] Stats Canada building project

On 2017-09-27 07:00 PM, john whelan wrote: > No we need to persuade the municipalities to move to the new standard > license in the TB kit Is this initiative published anywhere, John? I virtually attended the conference it was supposed to be announced at, and all there is is Jean-Noé's

Re: [Talk-ca] Stats Canada building project

On 2017-09-17 10:40 AM, john whelan wrote: > They'd like to extend it across Canada so now might be the time to think > about the project. That sounds good. Despite some prodding, the Licence Working Group (LWG) hasn't got back to me with any updates on how they want to handle the Toronto or

[Talk-ca] Esri Canada Community Maps

On 2017-09-15 12:40 PM, Bernie Connors wrote: > Esri Canada publishes several maps showing the status of data updates > for their Community Maps Program. One of the maps shows all of the areas > where ‎the imagery has been updated. All of the maps are available here > - Esri Canada Community Maps

[Talk-ca] Holger from Wheelmap in Toronto - Sep 21

Holger just posted this in the Toronto OSM Meetup chat: Holger Dieterich 8:21 AM Sent from Toronto OpenStreetMap Enthusiasts Dear Toronto OSM enthusiasts, I'm Holger, co-founder of http://wheelmap.org , an OSM-based app to find and mark wheelchair

Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

I agree with John that many ways flagged by Frederik look like they are legitimate CanVec imports. In a random sampling of chdr's flagged ways in Canada, fewer than 15% were created by that user. Some had existing names cleaned up (eg: Libersan → Rue Libersan in way 23456048) by chdr. Perhaps more

Re: [Talk-ca] Where are the Great Lakes?

On 2017-08-01 04:21 PM, Pilon, Michel (SSC/SPC) wrote: > > But at my surprise today I realize that the Great Lakes are not there > anymore for all zoom levels! “The Great Lakes were tagged as natural=coastline, even though that is for the ocean, because the coastline ways are rendered at low

Re: [Talk-ca] Multipolygon problems

On 2017-07-17 10:27 AM, Jochen Topf wrote: > > There is a new layer with this data now in the OSMI: > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas=-64.28033=53.72207=8=same_tags_on_outer_ring Thanks, Jochen! That's very helpful. Looks like CanvecImports cleaned up many of the thousands of giant

Re: [Talk-ca] Multipolygon problems

On 2017-07-02 04:41 PM, Begin Daniel wrote: > > However, since the same translator was used for all the polygons, the > problem should also appear on water bodies, etc. The problem may have > been related to the complexity of the polygons to convert. Hi Daniel - yes, I'm seeing a bunch of water

Re: [Talk-ca] Multipolygon problems

On 2017-07-01 05:22 PM, Jochen Topf wrote: > > There is nothing specific about woods here. It seems, though, that the root problem in Canada is *mostly* related to woods imported from Canvec. And we have some very large forestry relations indeed. I was finding that the JOSM process was using 13

Re: [Talk-ca] Multipolygon problems

Hi James, > Canvec 10.0 doesnt have the issues of double tagging, just overlapping I've found a whole bunch of Canvec 10 data with this problem west of Sudbury. I think it may still be an issue with later versions. Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list

Re: [Talk-ca] Multipolygon problems

On 2017-07-01 04:30 AM, Frank Steggink wrote: > > To all, this is the procedure I used yesterday, and probably something > similar also by Pierre. > * Not sure if it is a requirement, but it's better to use 64 bit Java. > … Thanks for this, Frank. I think I've found a way to make this a bit

Re: [Talk-ca] Add data of the City of Rouyn-Noranda, Québec, Canada

On 2017-06-17 09:06 AM, James wrote: > > As John has stated if you license your data under the Federal Gov open > data license v2. We wont have any licensing issues … but only if you *are* the Federal Government can you use this exact licence. As the City of Rouyn-Noranda isn't the Federal

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

On 2017-04-25 11:55 PM, m...@rtijn.org wrote: > > Let me suggest this: I will take the concerns raised here to our team > and get back to the list before the end of the week with proposed next > steps to fix where possible. We will use Github tickets to track > this. As a process suggestion, may

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

On 2017-04-25 12:43 AM, Andrew Lester wrote: > Okay Telenav, you win. … Yes, that must be frustrating. Would hate to lose you as a contributor. They're also adding futile turn restrictions at the join of one-way on/off ramps, like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7096540 (in a

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

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

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

On 2017-04-03 01:22 PM, john whelan wrote: > … At the municipal level the license has been approved by > OpenStreetMap's legal working group. This is not the case, unfortunately. This from personal communication from Simon Poole of the OSM Foundation's legal team from March 2017: >> [The

Re: [Talk-ca] Ottawa import: deleting existing content

On 2017-03-31 10:35 PM, James wrote: > Your example for building deletion, has 0 building deletion > > https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=47337186 Ah, linked to the wrong one. This has it: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=47302320 Here's jiminie's original changeset:

[Talk-ca] Ottawa import: deleting existing content

It seems that some of the import users didn't get the “Don't delete stuff” memo. User carpbunker is deleting address interpolation ways (example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47333119) and existing buildings (example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47337186). Please stop doing

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

Hi Andrew: > … I had already removed some of the > right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in Are the restrictions even necessary? If there are turn lanes present, one should use them. I can see, however, that routing software might send vehicles through the traffic lights if the turn

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Hi Kevin - > CSDs are legal boundaries - I.e. the legal boundary of a lower tier > municipality. I was a bit confused by terminology - I thought that Bjenk was referring to LCTs. The one I live in looks like this: https://gist.github.com/scruss/e4778dfc3a0ea5261581e688c4332c93 It's bounded by

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote: > > … Any more thoughts? If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they don't belong in OSM. “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be: 1. Truthful

Re: [Talk-ca] importing data requiring attribution

On 2017-03-05 09:44 PM, Brent Fraser wrote: > Hi all, > > I've had a request to improve the stream and trail data around Gibsons > BC using data from the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD > http://www.scrd.ca/data-download). Their license > (http://www.scrd.ca/scrd_disclaimer) permits

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

On 2017-03-04 09:09 AM, James wrote: > As the LWG said, it's not a blanket acceptance of all OGL variants, but > if future licenses we come across are exactly the same(kdiff of text or > something as proof) except the city/entity name. We will have a strong > case that it is compatible with ODbL.

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

On 2017-03-04 08:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote: > > We can follow the same steps and workflow in the future if we potentially > move to another city. > This is also something municipalities can use in defining their open data > licenses. Yup - for that reason, I will be asking the LWG about the

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

I just got access to the OSMF LWG draft minutes from yesterday, and I have good news: Ottawa ODL 2.0 data /can/ be included in the OSM database. The minutes link - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KyTLbQWSmo1rdoppqlFGTB3by-qVAzjLo_LPml3Ri9Y/edit - is still draft so may not be generally

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

>> Going to wait a few hours to accept replies and afterwards we're going >> to begin the import tonight (EST). > > Please don't do this - LWG is still working on it. I see that, despite the lack of approval from LWG, two users have taken the unilateral step of starting the import: *

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

Hi Denis, > We've already imported data under the City of Ottawa license, all of the > OC Transpo bus stop (minus a few in the downtown core). Yes, I meant to ask: where was the announcement/discussion of the OC Transpo import on this list? Where's the wiki process page? The imports seem to have

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

Hi James - > Yet it's the same as the Vancouver one that has been approved, and had > data imported Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way that OSM needs to work. The licences aren't the same: you can't use Vancouver's agreement to bind the City of Ottawa, and the Federal agreement

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

Hi Bjenk, > Most participants here agree that open data initiatives exist so that > we, the public, organizations including OSM, everyone can use the > data. The OSM project can't accept data that might have hidden licensing issues that might jeopardize OSM's existence. All new licenses are

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

On 2017-01-23 01:54 AM, Denis Carriere wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion on the license, however has anyone read > the documentation on the import yet? Read it? My mucky paw-prints are all over the edit history of the article and its talk page. So I know I've read it, at least. Couple of

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

On 2017-01-22 12:48 PM, James wrote: > > So why is this not considered the exact same as OGL-CA, which is > considered compatible with ODBL? My understanding of why it's not the same: 1) The OGL-CA, due to a fault in its design, can only be used by the Canadian Federal Government. Contrast that

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

Hi Bjenk - > I am not sure why there is confusion about Ottawa's ODL and it's > equivalence to OGL because the information is public but here it is to > clarify: > > "The Open Data License is based on version 2.0 of the “Open Government > Licence – Canada” which was developed through public

Re: [Talk-ca] Community Conduct

I know that the issue is settled and the affected edits based on Carleton's data have been reverted, but I got this response from their GIS and Digital Resources Librarian today: … the air photos are not permitted for use other than academic use, and OpenStreetMap does not qualify. …

[Talk-ca] a neat thing from Mappy Hour Toronto: OurPoster

Bryan from OurPoster came to Mappy Hour last night. They make city posters based on MapBox renderings of OSM maps. I haven't seen them on paper yet, but they look rather nice on the website: https://ourposter.com/ These are printed locally in Toronto. cheers, Stewart (there's no Glasgow

Re: [Talk-ca] building guidelines for Canada

Hi John - happy new year to all! > > The first is a strip mall with businesses inside. > > If the businesses are mapped as nodes then each can have its own name, > web site, internet_access=wlan etc. Each unit will also have a unique addr:unit too. In theory Nominatim should pick up the address

Re: [Talk-ca] Community Conduct

On 2016-12-22 07:47 PM, James wrote: > From what was told to me at the school, Stewart, you are allowed to > create derivative work/tracing, but not distribute the imagery. You may be able to create derivative work, but solely for teaching or academic purposes. The most recent Carleton

Re: [Talk-ca] Community Conduct

On 2016-12-22 02:43 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44545610#map=16/45.4064/-75.7947 > … > But maybe I'm overreacting and I'm prepared to let the matter rest if > the Canadian community finds that normal. I don't find that normal, and I'm sorry you had to deal

[Talk-ca] Fwd: Tuesday: Join 4 OpenStreetMappers at "#MaptimeTO with Steve Coast, Founder of OpenStreetMap"

Steve Coast is in Toronto this Tuesday ... Forwarded Message Subject:Tuesday: Join 4 OpenStreetMappers at "#MaptimeTO with Steve Coast, Founder of OpenStreetMap" Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:00:55 -0500 From: Toronto OpenStreetMap Enthusiasts To:

Re: [Talk-ca] New Innovative Map Company

On 2016-11-05 12:43 PM, Bradon Levalds wrote: > > This lasering allows only light to pass through the etched artwork which > frosts, creating a unique, contemporary and detailed design of any > location in the world with just the click of a button. These look really nice! I bet it took a load

[Talk-ca] Ag. fair grounds tagged “tourism=theme_park”?

I've noticed that most of the agricultural fair grounds are tagged as theme parks. Was this a CanVec thing? Most of these could never really be described as a theme park: Markham Fair Ground is basically a field with a pavilion. ExPlace struggles for a theme: 11 months of the year it's clearly

Re: [Talk-ca] Road route relations: network tag

On 2016-10-28 10:45 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > It's not documented that way anywhere that I could find. The colon > notation is. Based on the other comments and the documented standards we > started editing based on the spreadsheet. Well, it was here:

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

On 2016-10-24 08:04 AM, James wrote: > I've updated the documentation and incorporated Scruss's findings on the > build source data: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/TopographicMap Cool! I was hoping to be able to show that the geojson data that you were given

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

On 2016-10-22 12:12 AM, James wrote: > Converting, DWG to DXF to open in qgis should be fun nah, all that pointenclicky would do me no good at all. This is what OGR is for: ogr2ogr -f GeoJSON -s_srs epsg:2951 -t_srs epsg:4326 \ -dialect SQLite \ -sql "select * from entities

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

On 2016-10-21 11:41 PM, James wrote: > Sounds like it, but the data handed to us didnt have sidewalks and > roads, driveways etc. Ottawa may have exported data from this file Yes, for sure. I've now had more of a chance to look at the data (thanks, Ottawa, for providing no docs at all ...). I'm

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

On 2016-10-20 10:37 AM, James wrote: > > We seem to be turning in a circle around "building source data is not > publicly available" These might be the source data: http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset/cad-topographic-data Unfortunately, it's a 3+ GB archive of DWG files that has taken nearly two

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

Please note my comments/concerns on the process here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan copied below — Initial Comments on Plan It would be helpful if the plan were structured more like the Los Angeles, California/Buildings Import

Re: [Talk-ca] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

Hi Denis, > There's been countless amounts of Tasking Manager's that have been set > up for importing GNS (towns & villages) in Africa, I believe all of them > were only point data and have been very successful. While it's not a reflection on tasking manager, the African village GNS import

Re: [Talk-ca] City of Ottawa imported buildings & addresses

On 2016-10-19 02:31 AM, Denis Carriere wrote: > > *Quick survey: *Who is even opposed to a Building Import in Ottawa I'm opposed to the word “opposed”, as good imports done properly do add value to the map. But this import wasn't done right, so I can't support the method. More later. Stewart

Re: [Talk-ca] City of Ottawa imported buildings & addresses

On 2016-10-17 03:33 PM, James wrote: > Stewart, that's where you are wrong. Ottawa has supplied data(footprints > and address) to Stats Can to import into OSM for their project under the > Canada Open Gov License so there would be no issues with licensing. > > We are using that data. You have

Re: [Talk-ca] City of Ottawa imported buildings & addresses

Hi Frederik, > Which is why I'm reverting this import (and the deletions that went with > it) now. Not because we shouldn't ever import the data, but because I > don't want a fait accompli to stand in the way of a serious discussion > about the matter. There are a *lot* more import changesets by

Re: [Talk-ca] Avoiding data redundancy

Hi Jamie, > Seeing as there are boundary polygons for Ottawa, Ontario and Canada. I > think to reduce data redundancy these should be removed. I agree, but there are others who don't. I know that andrewpmk uses city and province tags as progress markers. There's also the potential utility where

[Talk-ca] Canada Post mailbox locations

Hi - I was surprised to find out today that Canada Post doesn't publish a list/map of mailbox locations. Have they ever done so in the past? (I realize that such a list wouldn't likely be open data, but I was just surprised that OSM might be a fairly comprehensive source.) cheers, Stewart

Re: [Talk-ca] French street names in Ottawa addr:street:fr

Hi John, > Please note the correct French name for rue Sparks is "rue Sparks" and > not "Rue Sparks" I'm only finding a couple of addr:street:fr in Ottawa with Overpass, and both have the offending capitalisation. Both were modified recently by LogicalViolinist in changesets 42331565 and

Re: [Talk-ca] Erreurs créées par des non-locaux

Hi Charles - > Would you mind educating me? I'm not very good with the overpass API. I > just tried and only got 3 ways in the Montréal area (indeed service > roads) with "source=improve_osm_tn". What's a good query? This (short link) query pulls up over 1900. Most of them are outside the

Re: [Talk-ca] Nunavut place names language

Hi John, > I would like to purpose OSM uses the same standard as this Wikipedia > Article. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communities_in_Nunavut Seems reasonable. > I really believe that *name=** should be written in english (Community). It's certainly more consistent than using

Re: [Talk-ca] Erreurs créées par des non-locaux

On 2016-09-20 03:46 AM, Mihai Iepure wrote: > > I can confirm that > we’ve been doing edits using our ImproveOSM tool, using the > /source=improve_osm_tn/ k/v pair. It would be nice if they were actual improvements, rather than breaking the map. Claiming Bing aerial imagery as a source in an

Re: [Talk-ca] Ottawa has changed its Open Data licence.

On 2016-09-14 05:15 PM, john whelan wrote: > http://ottawa.ca/en/mobile-apps-and-open-data/open-data-licence-version-20 This is very neat! I noticed it yesterday, but was too jetlagged from XOXO to say anything. > It should now be aligned with the Federal Government one so that should > mean we

Re: [Talk-ca] Annexation/amalgamation of towns/villages in Canada

On 2016-09-02 12:02 PM, yegbin wrote: > > As Beverly no longer exists, is it best practice to delete this node or is > there a better way to tag it? It shouldn't be in the map if it can't be verified on the ground. As to tagging, please delete the gns:* tags and especially the is_in tag. That

Re: [Talk-ca] unnamed roads

On 2016-09-01 06:43 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > A correct example link is http://maproulette.org/map/342/362184 rather > than the one in my previous message. Due to a bug in either MapRoulette > or Leaflet you would need to zoom out 1 level to see the map context. Yeah, I'm getting no

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

On 2016-09-01 09:05 AM, Begin Daniel wrote: > > - Run a better version of the preprocessor on the Canvec raw data and > reimport them again? Not possible. Canvec data has been produced and > renew between 2010 and 2012 by our national mapping agency (NRCan). > The product is now static (no

Re: [Talk-ca] Qualiuty of OSM data

On 2016-08-31 06:31 PM, Adam Martin wrote: > I would also like to take a read through that document. Sounds interesting. It *may* have been this one: “Node location anomaly — Jochen Topf” but I may be misremembering. > A giant

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

On 2016-08-30 09:18 AM, James wrote: > He's even going to revert my work: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41776742 > I've forwarded this to the DWG, it's getting rediculous. Using a dedicated account for imports is one of the few "musts". Nakaner may be being a little officious here, but

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

On 2016-08-25 02:26 PM, Alan Richards wrote: > Generally some of the polygons can be later merged across the boundaries > into less square shapes, but it can be complicated and slow work. I don't think it helps that we have users like fx99 consolidating huge areas into large ways and massively

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

On 2016-08-25 04:53 AM, Adam Martin wrote: > > … The polygons will need to be either merged > or redrawn to conform with the underlying land use. Or, dare I suggest, deleted completely. If they take a huge amount of work to fix and they add little value by being based on elderly data, I question

Re: [Talk-ca] JOSM: purge import pictures into sequence after use

Hi Laura, > TL;DR How do you remove one entry of "import pictures in sequence" > after completing and uploading edits? In the Layers pane, select and delete the "Geotagged Images" layer between image imports, perhaps? What plugin are you using to get the "import pictures into sequence" File

Re: [Talk-ca] OpenStreetMap at the Crossroads – The Map Room

This week's weeklyOSM has a bit about an over-zealous robot from Facebook: Imports * The Data Working Group (DWG) has reverted Facebook’s undiscussed import of poor quality autorecognized

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

Hi John - some great points here. > My understanding is currently he’s looking getting hold of the City of > Ottawa building outline data and making it available to OpenStreetMap > without the current license restriction. This would be wonderful. It would be ideal if the data could be placed on

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

On 2016-08-05 11:08 PM, Laura O'Grady wrote: > I just noticed that there is a project for Ottawa in the Canadian > Tasking Manager [1] called, "#2 - Ottawa Building Update". This looks a little old - it was last used 8 months ago. It also has some unnecessary guidelines, such as adding the

Re: [Talk-ca] Participating in the OSM forum

Hi Laura, > I was trying to register at the OSM forum. It appears as though new > registrations are closed. Try your OSM user name and password. Mine seemed to work, and I don't think I've ever posted there before. This should really use OAuth, he grumbles uselessly ... Stewart

Re: [Talk-ca] Let's map missing turn restrictions in Canada

On 2016-07-20 02:32 PM, Nathan Wessel wrote: > > Someone > on the tagging list suggested changing these to > "restriction:on_red"="no_right_turn", which is what I recently did for > all such restrictions that I could find in greater Toronto. Is this one?

Re: [Talk-ca] New project with OSM at Statistics Canada

On 2016-07-18 04:08 PM, john whelan wrote: > > … for the pilot what they would like > is a few tags adding to existing buildings. These would be things such > as postcode Ooh, lemme order popcorn so I can watch Canada Post sue Statistics Canada for use of "their" precious codes ... Stewart

Re: [Talk-ca] restriction=no_right_turn_on_red causing routing problems in Toronto

On 2016-06-28 04:19 PM, Nathan Wessel wrote: > It seems like conditional restrictions may be what we need. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Conditional_restrictions > > But it looks like we would be forging new ground if we went that > direction. I don't see anything on that page

Re: [Talk-ca] aerial imagery for missing roads

On 2016-06-23 10:26 PM, Pierre Béland wrote: > > Going north outside of urban zones, there are many tracks for lumber > areas. Hard to assess the accessibility of such roads for cars. Most logging roads, certainly in BC, are private. While they look large, and make tempting additions to the map,

Re: [Talk-ca] aerial imagery for missing roads

Hi Martijn, > I am wondering if you know of any more recent aerial imagery that may be > available? Or other suggestions to fill in these missing roads? (We have > found many, many cases in Canada alone) We don't have a national mapping agency in Canada that gives everything away for free.

Re: [Talk-ca] Stat Can and buildings

On 2016-06-15 11:01 AM, john whelan wrote: > As a first step Stats would like to know the tags used when mapping > buildings in Canada and the number of times used. … I looked at a small > sample from Ottawa and > noted 127 different tags on buildings including address tags. This might be

[Talk-ca] In regards to Canadian Postal Code data on Geocoder.ca (tangentially related)

Looks like Canada Post have dropped the lawsuit against Ervin Ruci. It still doesn't mean that the PAF is open data yet, but it's significant. >From https://geocoder.ca/?sued=1 — Legal News, May 2016 - In regards to Canadian Postal Code data on Geocoder.ca: Lawsuit Update This is

  1   2   >