OK, I've redacted Halifax changes. From four to three (municipalities with
license now "green.")
Steve
> On Jan 28, 2018, at 7:39 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:
>
> On 2018-01-28 09:16 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>> Halifax also looks like it grants explicit permission.
>
> still needs an
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. T
On 2018-01-28 02:42 PM, Jonathan Brown wrote:
>
> Okay, I know the Open Data folks and Open Government folks in Ontario.
They're good people: say hi.
> I can raise this licensing issue and how this is a barrier
> to crowdsourcing and citizen science, something that they are keen on
> embracing.
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
Talk-ca
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 Cont
Halifax also looks like it grants explicit permission. Cautiously, I change
Halifax to green (and remove strikeout type in Contributors), as I don't think
we need LWG to "offer benediction" when the owner of the data grants explicit
permission, as this link appears to do. If I'm wrong about th
Smiling here, thank you for wiki-ing fresher status in both wikis! (It's quite
doable, yes?).
Steve
> On Jan 28, 2018, at 3:40 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> Great, seems like we have a list of 3 ok ones:
> Ottawa (approved license)
> Gatineau + Montreal (explicit approval provided)
___
Great, seems like we have a list of 3 ok ones:
Ottawa (approved license)
Gatineau + Montreal (explicit approval provided)
@James, do we have documentation as to where approval was given? Would
be good to have this info on the wiki.
Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca
LWG blog post about CC-BY
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/
as long as you have explicit permission to add data from city. It become
compatible.
I used "may" as in "should remain on the list because explicit permission
was already obtained."
On Jan 28, 2018 5:53 PM, "O
On Jan 28, 2018, at 2:39 PM, James wrote:
> CC Attribution is compatible with explicit permission, so Gatineau and
> Montreal may remain on the list.
Oh, how I sometimes dislike the word "may!"
I know, I know, our good talk-ca dialog intends to help wider understanding and
consensus. This
CC Attribution is compatible with explicit permission, so Gatineau and
Montreal may remain on the list.
On Jan 28, 2018 5:20 PM, "OSM Volunteer stevea"
wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:27 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> > Steve A,
> > I suspect nobody fully knows the current status of licences...
On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:27 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> Steve A,
> I suspect nobody fully knows the current status of licences... So I would
> agree with the action that you wrote:
> every city except for Ottawa rightfully should be removed to end the
> confusion, updating both wikis.
OK, now do
n whelan
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:29 PM
> *To: *Jonathan Brown
> *Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
>
>
>
> If you map from Bing imagery there is no issue. If you do map from Bing
> please use the
Brown <mailto:jonab...@gmail.com>
*Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
If you map from Bing imagery there is no issue. If you do map from
Bing please use the building_tool plugin in JOSM. We tend to
Jonathan
*From: *john whelan <mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
*Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:29 PM
*To: *Jonathan Brown <mailto:jonab...@gmail.com>
*Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wik
data been integrated into
> the Ottawa Open Data Portal?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From: *john whelan
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:29 PM
> *To: *Jonathan Brown
> *Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and pro
support the mapathon event in the Niagara Region?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From: *john whelan
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 3:17 PM
> *To: *Jonathan Brown
> *Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project stat
there anything you think we
need to add to support the mapathon event in the Niagara Region?
Jonathan
From: john whelan
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 3:17 PM
To: Jonathan Brown
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
The Ottawa building
*john whelan
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:29 PM
> *To: *Jonathan Brown
> *Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
>
>
>
> If you map from Bing imagery there is no issue. If you do map from Bing
> please us
On Jan 28, 2018, at 11:29 AM, john whelan wrote:
>
> If you map from Bing imagery there is no issue. If you do map from Bing
> please use the building_tool plugin in JOSM. We tend to find new mappers
> using iD are not very accurate.
Thanks, John, that's a helpful history lesson. I've been
Ottawa Open Data Portal?
Jonathan
From: john whelan
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:29 PM
To: Jonathan Brown
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
If you map from Bing imagery there is no issue. If you do map from Bing please
use the
If you map from Bing imagery there is no issue. If you do map from Bing
please use the building_tool plugin in JOSM. We tend to find new mappers
using iD are not very accurate.
If the city has an Open Data file of the building outlines then it must be
available under a licence that OpenStreetMap
not only that but sometimes they add things that make it more or less
compatible(previously bc and their unique privacy or something else)
On Jan 28, 2018 2:14 PM, "OSM Volunteer stevea"
wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Jonathan Brown wrote:
> > If we have a description of the scope of th
On Jan 28, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Jonathan Brown wrote:
> If we have a description of the scope of the work involved in updating the
> BC2020 OD tables, I don’t mind trying to find some senior students who could
> be trained to take on this task for locations in Ontario. It would be a very
> small
osm.eu/en/archives/9884/
>
>
>
> Enjoy!
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> -
rom: OSM Volunteer stevea
To: "Stewart C. Russell" , talk-ca
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
Message-ID: <1145fd9b-205b-4d3d-a8c8-0b2f5846a...@softworkers.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On Jan 26, 2018, at 8:12 PM, Stewart C
On Jan 26, 2018, at 8:12 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:
> 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_Mu
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 ol
On Jan 26, 2018, at 8:02 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:
> If we got the Toronto licence approved tomorrow and none of the
> municipal licences changed for the better, at this rate we'd have all of
> the BC2020 data cleared for use by 2088 …
Now, no reason to let optimism wither; nobody is saying t
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 a
On Jan 26, 2018, at 6:42 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.
>
> I'm also under the impression that it is the only one that has had its
> benediction from the legal working group. Tr
I'm under the impression that Ottawa was the first city to move to the Open
Data 2.0 licence created by Treasury Board.
I'm also under the impression that it is the only one that has had its
benediction from the legal working group. Treasury Board of Canada put
quite a lot of effort into updating
The first (municipal) OD table in
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020/building_OD_tables
now uses green/yellow/red color-coding to better display accurate status in
those cells of rows in the "License" and "Completion in OSM" columns. These
give a certain "at a glan
33 matches
Mail list logo
