Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian Arctic Island Naming Languages

[James]

It can just be that the person mapping didnt follow the standards for Canada
for example:
[image: Inline image 1]

The name tag should be the native name. (Could be French, English or
Indigenous languages)
name:en the english translation
name:fr the french translation

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:46 PM, James Parker Badger jpbad...@ucalgary.ca
wrote:

  Hello,

  I am working at the University of Calgary on a project that is using
 OpenStreetMap data to provide a mapping service for Arctic researchers. We
 chose to use OpenStreetMap as we would like to encourage communities to
 contribute and share their local mapping data.

  One of the partners on our project is the Arctic Institute of North
 America (http://arctic.ucalgary.ca/), and one of their members asked me
 about the naming of islands in the Canadian Arctic: is there a reason some
 islands are named in French and others in English? The Arctic Institute
 generally uses the English names (or names in the indigenous languages).

  Sincerely,

  James
  --
 James Badger E.I.T.
 Research Associate
 GeoSensorWeb Lab
 Department of Geomatics Engineering
 Schulich School of Engineering
 University of Calgary
 2500 University Drive NW
 Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4
 http://sensorweb.geomatics.ucalgary.ca


 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca




-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Low quality unresolvable notes

[James]

I'd say close them with a comment. Some of them are actually precise,
saying like : no rtor eb.  Which is more than enough data. General things
like: add POIs at this location. Could be closed as the entirety of osm
could be summed in a widespread note saying: Add mapping data. You can use
your jugement and close them.
On Jul 6, 2015 8:34 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:

 I've been catching up on local notes, and have come across a few I'm not
 sure how to resolve. There are a number which are equivalent to There is a
 some name of shop somewhere in this block. While probably correct,
 they're not very useful.

 The notes aren't bug reports, the original intent of notes/OpenStreetBugs.
 They're not precise enough to resolve, so basically all the information
 they contain is that there are shops here which could be added if a site
 survey was done. A site survey would be nice, but there's plenty of areas
 where that is so - if someone opened up notes everywhere they were needed
 in the area, they'd make other notes less valuable and probably end up
 closed.

 I'm leaning towards closing them as not reporting a bug nor providing
 specific enough information to add something to the map, but wanted to get
 the thoughts of others.

 I might also bring this up at our next local meetup, see what other locals
 think.

 ___
 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] Looking for competent OSM editors to improve the map on Toronto area and Toronto PATH

[James]

Check out:
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=1a66e03bb8d1e310VgnVCM1071d60f89RCRD
It's their open data portal which also includes the building address
shapefile(not sure how accurate this is, I know Ottawa's has about 30%
errors (overlapping duplicate nodes, misplaced nodes))
Address shape file(can be open in JOSM with opendata plugin):
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=91415f9cd70bb210VgnVCM103dd60f89RCRDvgnextchannel=1a66e03bb8d1e310VgnVCM1071d60f89RCRD

But in the data portal there's all sort of information, paths, etc

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:34 AM, George Silva georger.si...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hello everyone,

 I have a few employers who are dedicating part of their funding to improve
 the map on Toronto and Toronto PATH, specially. This is a funded effort.

 I've tried to make some edits, but it's too hard for me, being a foreigner
 and not being on Toronto.

 The main thing here is to improve entrances and footways in that area.

 More details, please contact Darren Jones, at
 dar...@crosspathsolutions.com

 Thanks

 --
 George R. C. Silva
 Sigma Geosistemas LTDA
 
 http://www.sigmageosistemas.com.br/

 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca




-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Fwd: Ottawa, Canada import

[James]

Hello everyone, I was informed that before any kind of data import was to
be approved by the community. Unfortunately I have imported a bit of data
into openstreetmap and for this I am sorry.

but I did receive approval from the city that we could import data from
data.ottawa.ca/dataset. Which I documented here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Permission

I will be documenting the import on this wiki page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import

I know there has been a push within osmcanada to improve Ottawa's maps see
osm task:
http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/9
and I truely do believe this will help this cause. with your approval we
can move ahead and improve the already great maps that openstreetmap
provides.

*(Sorry for the double email I wasn't on the imports mailing list and it
bounced)*

Thank you
Jamie Nadeau
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Fwd: Ottawa, Canada import

[James]

Email I got after I said I will be unable to use the data due to
incompatible licensing:


James,

I’m going to forward this inquiry on to Robert Giggey. He is in charge of
the Open Data program at the City. I must say, I am a little surprised that
this interpretation is so restrictive. I personally was not aware of this.
I will also follow-up with Robert in this regard.


*-Stephen*

Maybe, they just needed some education? P.s. thank you Stewart for the
comparison tool!

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Stewart C. Russell scr...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hi James —

  What should I tell Stephen, to change the license for just OSM or in
 whole?

 For simplicity, they'd need to change the licence for everyone. A
 special carve-out for OSM alone would be fraught with problems.

 Ideally, they'd chose a licence that isunencumbered, like CC0 or PDDL.
 Any attempt to roll your own licence adds compatibility problems, and
 municipalities do love to keep those little clauses in that allow them
 to recall data.

 If you want to show Stephen how compatible and open the city's licence
 isn't, show him this:

  http://clipol.org/licences/16?tab=licence_compatibility

 It shows how Canadian municipalities all shared and tweaked licences,
 and inadvertently made them incompatible with everything. And they
 complain about why no-one uses their data.

 If they do want to change (great!), I know there are some folks on this
 list just itching for a roadtrip to the NCR to do some municipal education
 …

 cheers,
  Stewart


 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca




-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Ottawa, Canada import

[James]

Hello everyone, I was informed that before any kind of data import was to
be approved by the community. Unfortunately I have imported a bit of data
into openstreetmap and for this I am sorry.

but I did receive approval from the city that we could import data from
data.ottawa.ca/dataset. Which I documented here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Permission

I will be documenting the import on this wiki page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import

I know there has been a push within osmcanada to improve Ottawa's maps see
osm task:
http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/9
and I truely do believe this will help this cause. with your approval we
can move ahead and improve the already great maps that openstreetmap
provides.

Thank you
Jamie Nadeau
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Fwd: Ottawa, Canada import

[James]

I got an email back from the guy handling the Licensing.

Hi James, thank-you for the email.  I’m not sure I understand the
compatibility grid.   Is there a particular issue you are concerned about?



Note: we have plans to adapt the Open Government License Canada but have
not been able to do that quite yet; however, there are few differences
between the two, so if there’s a specific item you are concerned about it I
might be able to shed some light on how we treat it.




Thank-you,


Robert Giggey
---

What would be the specifics of our license (ODbL) incompatible with
Ottawa-TOU?

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:14 AM, James james2...@gmail.com wrote:

 Email I got after I said I will be unable to use the data due to
 incompatible licensing:


 James,

 I’m going to forward this inquiry on to Robert Giggey. He is in charge of
 the Open Data program at the City. I must say, I am a little surprised that
 this interpretation is so restrictive. I personally was not aware of this.
 I will also follow-up with Robert in this regard.


 *-Stephen*

 Maybe, they just needed some education? P.s. thank you Stewart for the
 comparison tool!

 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Stewart C. Russell scr...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Hi James —

  What should I tell Stephen, to change the license for just OSM or in
 whole?

 For simplicity, they'd need to change the licence for everyone. A
 special carve-out for OSM alone would be fraught with problems.

 Ideally, they'd chose a licence that isunencumbered, like CC0 or PDDL.
 Any attempt to roll your own licence adds compatibility problems, and
 municipalities do love to keep those little clauses in that allow them
 to recall data.

 If you want to show Stephen how compatible and open the city's licence
 isn't, show him this:

  http://clipol.org/licences/16?tab=licence_compatibility

 It shows how Canadian municipalities all shared and tweaked licences,
 and inadvertently made them incompatible with everything. And they
 complain about why no-one uses their data.

 If they do want to change (great!), I know there are some folks on this
 list just itching for a roadtrip to the NCR to do some municipal
 education …

 cheers,
  Stewart


 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca




 --
 外に遊びに行こう！




-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Forestry Roads

[James]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway

Should be track

Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses. To describe the quality of
a track, see tracktype=*. Note: Although tracks are often rough with
unpaved surfaces, this tag is not describing the quality of a road but its
use. Consequently, if you want to tag a general use road, use one of the
general highway values instead of track.
On Jul 15, 2015 7:15 PM, Steve Roy st...@ssni.ca wrote:

 Whenever I have created forestry roads I have used highway=track -
 particularly if I know the road is rough and unmaintained.
 These are your typical BC forestry roads that are able to be used after
 logging is completed in the area and the roads haven't been
 de-activated.  I have had people change them to
 highway=minor/unclassified after my edits are done and for the most part
 I leave them unless I know the road is a rough/4x4 road, the kind you
 wouldn't take a Honda Civic on.

 However I have been emailing with a person adding forestry roads on
 Vancouver Island and they insist on the tag highway=service for their
 edits when mapping forestry roads.  These aren't the main A to B
 forestry roads, rather smaller gravel roads.

 What is the correct tag in Canada?

 Thanks
 Steve Roy

 ___
 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] Cycling map vs Standard map

[James]

Any other layer apart from the standard layer takes more time to
render(it's deliberately delayed) so if you have made changes recently that
show up on the standard layer but not on the cycle map you might have to
wait a couple days for the cycle layer to catch up (usually 2-3 days)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Pierre Boucher 
wrote:

> Hi,
> Can someone have and explanation (and a solution) to the fact that for the
> same specific area (small area a few square kilometers) the cycling map is
> not update  to the latest tags.  If you compare the Cycling Map to the 
> Standard
> Map for this area you will see what I mean (I hope so)
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.6271/-73.8443=C
>
> Regards,
>
> * Pierre Boucher (Alias Boff 2  on OSM)*
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] CanVec+

[James]

I was just wondering if anyone knew that CanVec data is being phased out
and replaced by CanVec+. I spoke with Marc LeMaire from NRCan and he said
that they will not be offering .osm conversions of CanVec+ data, which
means that we will have to convert the shapefiles ourselves. My question is
has anyone begun coding/documenting CanVec+ data for conversion yet? Marc
said that they are ending CanVec by the end of the year.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] GeoBase Import

[James]

Has anyone else had issues with the conversion script from GML to osm?

I've been looking at the wiki here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geobase/Import_How-To

and when I try to convert the data python gives me the :

UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xae in position
2: ordinal not in range(128)

Which i'm pretty sure is the é character
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Metrolinx: OSM Golden Horseshoe Address Data

[James]

If you need a HOT task manager. I am currently hosting it on
tasks.osmcanada.ca. If you want to become a project manager just send me an
email after you've logged in, I can set you as one.

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:53 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> The issue has come up in Ottawa as well, some street names or incorrect,
> the city has been correcting them but there are some hundred to be changed
> when I spoke to the person at the city.
>
> CANVEC address import seems often to have been done by different people in
> different ways and in Ottawa many of the CANVEC version tags have been
> removed so you can't be sure if its CANVEC or not.
>
> It probably needs something like a HOT tile project over the city so that
> it can be gone over.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 12 January 2016 at 13:30, Pierre Choffet  wrote:
>
>> Le 12/01/2016 12:50, Adam Martin a écrit :
>> > Taking a look around the data in OSM for Toronto, it would appear that
>> > the address interpolations have been added via import from CanVec
>> > already, Pierre.
>> Indeed. I checked before sending my email, but I zoomed in a place where
>> there is no CanVec address interpolations data, what I wrongly
>> extrapolated city-wide.
>>
>> Sorry for both these irrelevant messages.
>>
>> 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
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] source http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset/

[James]

We do have permission from the city to import:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Permission

but the OSM lawyers have said that the license is incompatible as the city
can pass on a lawsuit if someone sues the city for pointing them to the
wrong address with osm data.

>From the discussion with the city they want to change to the Open
Government License but they said they'd do it around December. I think when
you talked to them john they said they were working on it with their legal
team and possibly this quarter. Not sure when the license change will
happen or if it will (and they are just dicking around).

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:44 AM, john whelan  wrote:

> I was looking in downtown Ottawa when I noticed two sets of addresses in
> the map.
>
> One appears to be labelled source=http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset/ which is
> city of Ottawa Open data portal which to my understanding isn't licensed
> for our use.
>
> I'm not certain how many other things have been imported.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

I agree with Michael. What happens if fire services need to use that road
or emergency services like ambulence etc. It should be the application's
job to determine in which condition a road should or shouldnt be used, not
the mappers job to obfuscate the map
On Jun 25, 2016 4:01 PM, "Michael Zajac"  wrote:

> The map shows what’s there. Hopefully it can also show private- or
> public-access status, but its job is not to babysit potential trespassers
> by keeping parts of the landscape secret.
>
>
> Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com] wrote:
>
> > Most logging roads, certainly in BC, are private. While they look large,
> and make tempting additions to the map, accidentally routing traffic along
> them could be fatal. Logging trucks don't (can't!) stop, and unless you
> have authorization and the right radio to call in the checkpoints, the
> controller won't be able to tell you if there's a truck coming that you
> need to get out of the way of.
> >
> > CanVec also mistakenly digitized a bunch of private wind farm access
> roads in Ontario, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39334427 .
> >
> > While using these might not be life-threatening, it is trespassing to
> use them.
>
> --
> Michael Zajac
> http://zajac.ca/
> +1-204-943-6596
>
>
>
> > On 2016-06-25, at 13:52, talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> >
> > Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
> >   talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >   talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >   talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >   1. Re: aerial imagery for missing roads (Alan Richards)
> >   2. Re: aerial imagery for missing roads (Pierre Béland)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:31:42 + (UTC)
> > From: Alan Richards 
> > To: Martijn van Exel , Kevin Farrugia
> >   
> > Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] aerial imagery for missing roads
> > Message-ID:
> >   <
> 1311b39aa81e624e.ad0720c3-33a3-4256-87d1-d01909f9b...@mail.outlook.com>
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Most forest service roads in BC are not private. They may be built by
> private logging companies and may occasionally be gated, but the majority
> are on crown land and are open for recreational use. Road conditions vary
> wildly and roads are often unmaintained if active logging is not in
> progress in the area.
> > While I agree that typically these roads should not be used for typical
> intercity routing, they are often used for recreation, hunting, fishing etc.
> >
> > Alan (alarobric)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:59 AM -0700, "Martijn van Exel" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Interesting, that seems to be worth a look! Do you happen to know who
> these open data people are? Do similar open data groups / people exist in
> other provinces?
> > Martijn
> > On Jun 25, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Kevin Farrugia 
> wrote:
> > Morning everyone,
> > I was looking at information on one of the Province's imagery programs
> (SWOOP:
> https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/3609/lio-swoop2015-eng-final-2014-05-13.pdf)
> and I had previously assumed that the imagery was paid for by the province
> but the rights still owned by the imagery company, which is the case where
> I work.  However, it looks like they might purchase the imagery outright
> because it says the imagery is owned by the Queen's Printer, which is the
> holder of the Crown's copyrights in Ontario.
> > If that's the case you can try contacting their open data team to see if
> they can persuade the Ministry of Natural Resources to release the data
> openly under the Open Government Directive as a WMS/TIFFs or you can lodge
> a FIPPA request to have it released (I don't know how this affects you or
> us being able to use it in OSM, however).
> > You can check out what their imagery looks like here to see if it's
> worth your time contacting them:
> http://www.giscoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/matm/Index.html?site=Make_A_Topographic_Map=MATM=en-US
> (in Map Layers turn off Topographic Data to see the imagery).
> > -Kevin (Kevo)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Begin Daniel 
> wrote:
> > Missing access=no and access=private tags I understand...
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> >
> > From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com]
> >
> > Sent: June-24-16 22:45
> >
> > To: 

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

[James]

Pierre that's why you describe what state the road is in, weither it be a
highway=track or highway=unknown or highway=tiertiary. As long as I can
distinguish two tire tracks, to me it's a road

Pierre c'est pour ca on devrait décrire les routes que ca soit
highway=track ou highway=unknown ou highway=tiertiary. En autant que je
puisse voir deux traces de roues, pour moi c'est une rue.
On Jun 26, 2016 6:57 PM, "Pierre Béland" <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Question urgencs, on doit aussi se demander quelles seraient les clés à
> ajouter pour bien décrire les difficutés rencontrées sur ces route
> - surface - minimum 4x4 ou pickup?
> - sécurité vs véhicules lourds
> - approvisionnements et essence souvent absents
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> --
> *De :* James <james2...@gmail.com>
> *À :* Michael Zajac <mich...@zajac.ca>
> *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Envoyé le :* Dimanche 26 juin 2016 17h35
> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] aerial imagery for missing roads
>
> I agree with Michael. What happens if fire services need to use that road
> or emergency services like ambulence etc. It should be the application's
> job to determine in which condition a road should or shouldnt be used, not
> the mappers job to obfuscate the map
> On Jun 25, 2016 4:01 PM, "Michael Zajac" <mich...@zajac.ca> wrote:
>
> The map shows what’s there. Hopefully it can also show private- or
> public-access status, but its job is not to babysit potential trespassers
> by keeping parts of the landscape secret.
>
>
> Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com] wrote:
>
> > Most logging roads, certainly in BC, are private. While they look large,
> and make tempting additions to the map, accidentally routing traffic along
> them could be fatal. Logging trucks don't (can't!) stop, and unless you
> have authorization and the right radio to call in the checkpoints, the
> controller won't be able to tell you if there's a truck coming that you
> need to get out of the way of.
> >
> > CanVec also mistakenly digitized a bunch of private wind farm access
> roads in Ontario, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39334427 .
> >
> > While using these might not be life-threatening, it is trespassing to
> use them.
>
> --
> Michael Zajac
> http://zajac.ca/
> +1-204-943-6596
>
>
>
> > On 2016-06-25, at 13:52, talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> >
> > Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
> >   talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >   talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >   talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >   1. Re: aerial imagery for missing roads (Alan Richards)
> >   2. Re: aerial imagery for missing roads (Pierre Béland)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:31:42 + (UTC)
> > From: Alan Richards <alarob...@gmail.com>
> > To: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org>, Kevin Farrugia
> >   <kevinfarru...@gmail.com>
> > Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] aerial imagery for missing roads
> > Message-ID:
> >   <
> 1311b39aa81e624e.ad0720c3-33a3-4256-87d1-d01909f9b...@mail.outlook.com>
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Most forest service roads in BC are not private. They may be built by
> private logging companies and may occasionally be gated, but the majority
> are on crown land and are open for recreational use. Road conditions vary
> wildly and roads are often unmaintained if active logging is not in
> progress in the area.
> > While I agree that typically these roads should not be used for typical
> intercity routing, they are often used for recreation, hunting, fishing etc.
> >
> > Alan (alarobric)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:59 AM -0700, "Martijn van Exel" <m...@rtijn.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Interesting, that seems to be worth a look! Do you happen to know who
> these open data

Re: [Talk-ca] Bus stops in Ottawa

[James]

Most of the STO bus stations were manually added by myself, not sure if
there were any added/changed after the fact
On Feb 28, 2016 4:02 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> So it sounds like essentially we are saying the import wasn't discussed at
> least as far as what the tags were to be used, I note that the STO stops on
> Wellington have a different set of tags.  Nor was any thought given to
> preserving bus shelter information nor to keeping the information up to
> date nor to removing any bus stops already mapped.
>
> Oh well such is life.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 28 February 2016 at 15:19, Andrew MacKinnon 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2016 3:05 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:
>> >
>> > It appears in august 2013 user andrewpmk imported the OC transpo bus
>> stops, which is fine I don't have a problem with imports but I understand
>> OC transpo issue a new updated GTFS file every year.  Are there plans to
>> reimport all the bus stops or will they simply become unreliable?  ie most
>> will be there and some will be missed.
>> > These bus stops have been imported since the POI information includes
>> information which is not visible at the bus stop but is available form the
>> GTFS file.
>> >
>> > I have three concerns, one is the GTFS file does not include bus
>> shelters and some existing bus stops have been mapped with shelter
>> information.  Are we to lose bus shelter information?  The second is
>> locally andrewpmk mapped bus stops in 2011 without the GTFS POI information
>> and they are still there.  So some locations have two bus stops mapped
>> where there should be only one.  The third one is how reliable is the data?
>> Were all the bus stops in Ottawa imported and how do we communicate to
>> users this bus stop was mapped in Aug 2013 if they aren't using JOSM?
>>
>> The bus stops were imported by brousseaumat. I just added the operator OC
>> Transpo to them.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Bus stops in Ottawa

[James]

I had also STO had no choice of being added manually as STO wouldnt provide
gtfs data, not sure if the license is even compatible for import(for the
gtfs data they finally provided after many people have begged for years for)
On Feb 28, 2016 4:24 PM, "Adam Martin" <s.adam.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is often the trouble that long-term mappers might have with
> hit-and-run mappers, especially with regards to "living" information that
> is added to the map. Static information, like large buildings in a mature
> location or major thoroughfares, can be added by these quick mappers and
> remain relatively "safe" in terms of display on the map. The more living
> that information might be, such as bus stops in a metropolis or the
> individual businesses in a strip mall, the more prone it is to becoming
> stale-dated. Mappers in the area would be better suited to updating these
> points.
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:37 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Most of the STO bus stations were manually added by myself, not sure if
>> there were any added/changed after the fact
>> On Feb 28, 2016 4:02 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So it sounds like essentially we are saying the import wasn't discussed
>>> at least as far as what the tags were to be used, I note that the STO stops
>>> on Wellington have a different set of tags.  Nor was any thought given to
>>> preserving bus shelter information nor to keeping the information up to
>>> date nor to removing any bus stops already mapped.
>>>
>>> Oh well such is life.
>>>
>>> Cheerio John
>>>
>>> On 28 February 2016 at 15:19, Andrew MacKinnon <andrew...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 28, 2016 3:05 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > It appears in august 2013 user andrewpmk imported the OC transpo bus
>>>> stops, which is fine I don't have a problem with imports but I understand
>>>> OC transpo issue a new updated GTFS file every year.  Are there plans to
>>>> reimport all the bus stops or will they simply become unreliable?  ie most
>>>> will be there and some will be missed.
>>>> > These bus stops have been imported since the POI information includes
>>>> information which is not visible at the bus stop but is available form the
>>>> GTFS file.
>>>> >
>>>> > I have three concerns, one is the GTFS file does not include bus
>>>> shelters and some existing bus stops have been mapped with shelter
>>>> information.  Are we to lose bus shelter information?  The second is
>>>> locally andrewpmk mapped bus stops in 2011 without the GTFS POI information
>>>> and they are still there.  So some locations have two bus stops mapped
>>>> where there should be only one.  The third one is how reliable is the data?
>>>> Were all the bus stops in Ottawa imported and how do we communicate to
>>>> users this bus stop was mapped in Aug 2013 if they aren't using JOSM?
>>>>
>>>> The bus stops were imported by brousseaumat. I just added the operator
>>>> OC Transpo to them.
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> 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] Bus stops in Ottawa

[James]

There's also the problem: how do you know that the bus stop was from an
import vs user created.
On Feb 28, 2016 8:48 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> I think with the clause in the uploading terms that OSM can change the
> license its very difficult to import anything as it is difficult to say to
> City of Ottawa etc we'd like your data but we don't know what license it
> may have in OSM in the future.
>
> Is anyone going to take the responsibility on for removing the data?
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 28 February 2016 at 20:37, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
>
>> Hi John, and all —
>>
>> If this is the GTFS data for Ottawa:
>>
>> http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset/oc-transpo-schedules
>>
>> then it's published under the City of Ottawa Open Data - Terms of use:
>>
>> http://ottawa.ca/en/mobile-apps-and-open-data/open-data-terms-use
>>
>> This licence is incompatible with the ODbL used by OSM:
>>
>> http://clipol.org/licences/16?tab=licence_compatibility
>>
>> and therefore these data, and any others derived from Ottawa municipal
>> data sets, should be removed from the map.
>>
>> I know that there may be commuting apps that rely on these data points,
>> but it's Ottawa's silly fault for using a licence that's only compatible
>> with itself.
>>
>> cheers,
>>  Stewart
>>
>> ___
>> 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] bus stops, post codes and rent-a-crowd

[James]

I already added a request a year ago when UK released theirs, even emailed
the PM candidates at the start of the elections. Can't help anymore
unfortunately
On Mar 16, 2016 8:31 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I understand but there is an open data mailing list floating around and
> since the UK has opened up its Post Codes there is more pressure for the
> Canadian ones.  There is a concerted effort for post codes at the moment so
> every little straw helps.
>
> I was talking to the TB open data people this afternoon and the advice
> given was every added request at the moment helps.
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 16 March 2016 at 20:26, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Postal codes have already been suggested a long time ago
>> http://open.canada.ca/en/suggested-datasets/postal-code-database
>> On Mar 16, 2016 8:22 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ​Mojgan recently identified that data from the government of Canada’s
>>> open data portal could be imported into OSM.
>>>
>>> I was nattering to Treasury board today and they were aware of the
>>> interest in Post Code data.  Some of the Open Data crowd are making a push
>>> to try and get the Post Code data published through the Open Data portal.
>>>
>>> The more requests they have for the data set the easier it is to get
>>> it.  So the rent-a-crowd bit is please go here:
>>> http://open.canada.ca/en/forms/suggest-dataset and drop a request in
>>> that post code data be made available.
>>>
>>> We also talked about bus stops and it sounds as if they are aware of the
>>> interest.  So perhaps a request for bus stops across Canada be made
>>> available in GTFS format at the same time.  This will need to be
>>> coordinated with the municipalities but since most are already supplying
>>> this data to Google I don’t see any technical problem.
>>>
>>> Note I’m not suggesting it is imported wholesale into OSM at this time
>>> but it would at least make it possible.
>>>
>>> Cheerio 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] Gouvernement du Québec et Municipalités : Nouveau portail et licence ouverte

[James]

Les licenses ODC-ODbL-1.0 et CC-BY-4.0 sont compatibles.
http://clipol.org/licences/70?tab=licence_compatibility

2016-04-06 13:49 GMT-04:00 Charles Basenga Kiyanda <
perso...@charleskiyanda.com>:

> Ce que je comprends, toutefois, c'est que c'est la clause d'attribution
> qui est problématique avec les licences CC, quand on essaye d'intégrer
> avec l'odbl. La solution que nous avons privilégiée avec la ville de
> Montréal (et qui je crois est acceptée par la communauté OSM) c'est
> d'obtenir une confirmation (la notre est par courriel, idéalement la
> confirmation serait aussi sur le site du fournisseur de données) que "le
> fournisseur des données considère que l'attribution sur la page du wiki
> d'openstreetmap remplit les obligations détaillées dans la clause
> d'attribution de la licence CC pour fin d'inclusion des données sous
> licence odbl." (Ou quelque chose du genre...)
>
> Bref, si je comprends bien, CC-by-SA ou CC-by-NC ou CC-by auraient
> toutes le même problème. Au sens strict de la clause d'attribution des
> licences CC, OSM serait tenu de mentionner l'origine des données avec
> les données elles-mêmes et sur toutes les tuiles, ce qu'on ne fait pas.
>
> Charles
>
> On 04/05/2016 06:33 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:
> > Bonjour Sébastien,
> >
> > j'ai mal recopié l'info et n'ai pas vu la subtilité SA ou NC. En
> > relisant sur le site, il semble bien que ce soit la licence CC-by
> > telle que promoise en février 2014.
> >
> > Avec cette l'annonce du nouveau site de données ouvertes aujourd'hui,
> > je n'ai pas vu de menton de la licence. Cependant elle est spécifiée
> > sur le site et avec chaque jeu de données.
> >
> > Voici le lien vers la licence. On indique 6 variantes possibles.
> > https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/licence/#cc-by
> >
> > La mention de la licence lors du téléchargement d'un jeu de données est
> > Licence Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0
> >  [Open Data]
> > 
> >
> > Voir par exemple
> > https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/fr/dataset/liaison-maritime
> >
> > Il faudra effectivement s'assurer que c'est bien la licence cc-by qui
> > s'applique.
> >
> > Pierre
> >
> >
> > 
> > *De :* Sebastien Duthil 
> > *À :* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > *Envoyé le :* mardi 5 avril 2016 17h52
> > *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Gouvernement du Québec et Municipalités :
> > Nouveau portail et licence ouverte
> >
> > On 04/05/2016 11:46 AM, Pierre Béland wrote:
> > > Le nouveau portail a été lancé aujourd'hui à
> > > https://www.donneesquebec.ca
> > 
> > >
> > > Les données sont maintenant publiées avec la licence CC-by-SA-4.0. Cela
> > > devrait donc permettre l'import des données offertes par le
> gouvernement
> > > du Québec et les municipalités de Québec, Montréal, Gatineau et
> > Sherbrooke.
> >
> > Peux-tu préciser où tu as vu que CC-BY-SA était compatible avec ODbL? Je
> > n'ai trouvé que l'indication du contraire dans le wiki [1].
> >
> > Aussi, j'y ai vu des données sous licence CC-BY-4.0, sans clause SA...
> > celles-ci seraient-elles compatibles?
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Could you point out where you read that CC-BY-SA was compatible with
> > ODbL? I only found the wiki stating the contrary [1].
> >
> > Also, I found on the website some data under CC-BY-4.0, without the SA
> > restriction... would that make the data compatible?
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations#Is_the_OSM_licence_.28ODbL.29_compatible_with_other_.22free.22_licences.3F
> > (last section)
> >
> > --
> > Sébastien Duthil
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Gouvernement du Québec et Municipalités : Nouveau portail et licence ouverte

[James]

Scuse j'ai oublié le ne et le pas
On Apr 6, 2016 3:33 PM, "Charles Basenga Kiyanda" <
perso...@charleskiyanda.com> wrote:

> Le lien fourni dit que les licenses ODC-ODbl-1.0 et CC-BY-4.0 sont
> INcompatibles. Est-ce que j'ai mal lu l'information?
>
> Charles
>
> On 04/06/2016 03:13 PM, James wrote:
> > Les licenses ODC-ODbL-1.0 et CC-BY-4.0 sont compatibles.
> > http://clipol.org/licences/70?tab=licence_compatibility
> >
> > 2016-04-06 13:49 GMT-04:00 Charles Basenga Kiyanda
> > <perso...@charleskiyanda.com <mailto:perso...@charleskiyanda.com>>:
> >
> > Ce que je comprends, toutefois, c'est que c'est la clause
> > d'attribution
> > qui est problématique avec les licences CC, quand on essaye
> d'intégrer
> > avec l'odbl. La solution que nous avons privilégiée avec la ville de
> > Montréal (et qui je crois est acceptée par la communauté OSM) c'est
> > d'obtenir une confirmation (la notre est par courriel, idéalement la
> > confirmation serait aussi sur le site du fournisseur de données)
> > que "le
> > fournisseur des données considère que l'attribution sur la page du
> > wiki
> > d'openstreetmap remplit les obligations détaillées dans la clause
> > d'attribution de la licence CC pour fin d'inclusion des données sous
> > licence odbl." (Ou quelque chose du genre...)
> >
> > Bref, si je comprends bien, CC-by-SA ou CC-by-NC ou CC-by auraient
> > toutes le même problème. Au sens strict de la clause d'attribution
> des
> > licences CC, OSM serait tenu de mentionner l'origine des données avec
> > les données elles-mêmes et sur toutes les tuiles, ce qu'on ne fait
> > pas.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > On 04/05/2016 06:33 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:
> > > Bonjour Sébastien,
> > >
> > > j'ai mal recopié l'info et n'ai pas vu la subtilité SA ou NC. En
> > > relisant sur le site, il semble bien que ce soit la licence CC-by
> > > telle que promoise en février 2014.
> > >
> > > Avec cette l'annonce du nouveau site de données ouvertes
> > aujourd'hui,
> > > je n'ai pas vu de menton de la licence. Cependant elle est
> spécifiée
> > > sur le site et avec chaque jeu de données.
> > >
> > > Voici le lien vers la licence. On indique 6 variantes possibles.
> > > https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/licence/#cc-by
> > >
> > > La mention de la licence lors du téléchargement d'un jeu de
> > données est
> > > Licence Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0
> > > <https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/licence/#cc-by> [Open Data]
> > > <https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/faq/#post-594>
> > >
> > > Voir par exemple
> > > https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/fr/dataset/liaison-maritime
> > >
> > > Il faudra effectivement s'assurer que c'est bien la licence
> > cc-by qui
> > > s'applique.
> > >
> > > Pierre
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>  
> > > *De :* Sebastien Duthil <duth...@free.fr <mailto:duth...@free.fr>>
> > > *À :* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> > > *Envoyé le :* mardi 5 avril 2016 17h52
> > > *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Gouvernement du Québec et Municipalités :
> > > Nouveau portail et licence ouverte
> > >
> > > On 04/05/2016 11:46 AM, Pierre Béland wrote:
> > > > Le nouveau portail a été lancé aujourd'hui à
> > > > https://www.donneesquebec.ca
> > > <https://www.donneesquebec.ca/><https://www.donneesquebec.ca/>
> > > >
> > > > Les données sont maintenant publiées avec la licence
> > CC-by-SA-4.0. Cela
> > > > devrait donc permettre l'import des données offertes par le
> > gouvernement
> > > > du Québec et les municipalités de Québec, Montréal, Gatineau et
> > > Sherbrooke.
> > >
> > > Peux-tu préciser où tu as vu que CC-BY-SA était compatible avec
> > ODbL? Je
> > > n'ai trouvé que l'indication du contraire dans le wiki [1].
> > >
> > > Aussi, j'y ai vu des données sous licence CC-BY-4.0, sans clause
> > SA...
> > > celles-ci seraient-elles compatibles?
> > >

Re: [Talk-ca] bus stops, post codes and rent-a-crowd

[James]

Postal codes have already been suggested a long time ago
http://open.canada.ca/en/suggested-datasets/postal-code-database
On Mar 16, 2016 8:22 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> ​Mojgan recently identified that data from the government of Canada’s open
> data portal could be imported into OSM.
>
> I was nattering to Treasury board today and they were aware of the
> interest in Post Code data.  Some of the Open Data crowd are making a push
> to try and get the Post Code data published through the Open Data portal.
>
> The more requests they have for the data set the easier it is to get it.
> So the rent-a-crowd bit is please go here:
> http://open.canada.ca/en/forms/suggest-dataset and drop a request in that
> post code data be made available.
>
> We also talked about bus stops and it sounds as if they are aware of the
> interest.  So perhaps a request for bus stops across Canada be made
> available in GTFS format at the same time.  This will need to be
> coordinated with the municipalities but since most are already supplying
> this data to Google I don’t see any technical problem.
>
> Note I’m not suggesting it is imported wholesale into OSM at this time but
> it would at least make it possible.
>
> Cheerio 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] Données ouvertes de Shawinigan, QC

[James]

Chu pas un avocat, mais
Cette partie pourrais causer des troubles

"Vous reconnaissez que cette licence ne vous accorde pas de droits
d’auteur ou de propriété sur les données. Si vous diffusez ou donnez
accès à ces données à un tiers, vous vous engagez à inclure une
copie des présentes conditions d’utilisation, ou à en fournir l’adresse
URL, et à vous assurer que ladite personne les accepte et y est liée,
sans introduire aucune restriction supplémentaire de quelque nature
que ce soit."
On Apr 25, 2016 6:48 PM, "Bruno Remy"  wrote:

> Bonjour à tous,
>
> Pour votre information, Shawinigan a publié des données ouvertes sur son
> portail:
>
> http://www.shawinigan.ca/Ville/donnees-ouvertes_195.html
>
> La licence choisie n'est pas une licence Creative Commons mais une licence
> "interne":
>
> http://jmap.shawinigan.ca/doc/photos/Donn%C3%A9es%20ouvertes.conditions.Shawinigan.pdf
>
> Je ne m'aventurerai sur le terrain juridique de son interprétation, mais
> je tenais tout de même à vous partager l'information
>
>
>
> --
> Bruno Remy
>
> ___
> 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] Données ouvertes de Shawinigan, QC

[James]

Si, en raison de votre non-respect des présentes conditions
d’utilisation, la Ville est poursuivie ou sommée de donner de l’argent à
qui que ce soit, vous vous engagez à prendre fait et cause pour la
Ville et à la rembourser pour tous les dommages qu’elle pourrait subir
par votre faute.

Est un autre probleme Ottawa a la meme clause et fait en sorte que ce n'est
pas compatible
On Apr 25, 2016 6:51 PM, "James" <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Chu pas un avocat, mais
> Cette partie pourrais causer des troubles
>
> "Vous reconnaissez que cette licence ne vous accorde pas de droits
> d’auteur ou de propriété sur les données. Si vous diffusez ou donnez
> accès à ces données à un tiers, vous vous engagez à inclure une
> copie des présentes conditions d’utilisation, ou à en fournir l’adresse
> URL, et à vous assurer que ladite personne les accepte et y est liée,
> sans introduire aucune restriction supplémentaire de quelque nature
> que ce soit."
> On Apr 25, 2016 6:48 PM, "Bruno Remy" <bremy.qc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bonjour à tous,
>>
>> Pour votre information, Shawinigan a publié des données ouvertes sur son
>> portail:
>>
>> http://www.shawinigan.ca/Ville/donnees-ouvertes_195.html
>>
>> La licence choisie n'est pas une licence Creative Commons mais une
>> licence "interne":
>>
>> http://jmap.shawinigan.ca/doc/photos/Donn%C3%A9es%20ouvertes.conditions.Shawinigan.pdf
>>
>> Je ne m'aventurerai sur le terrain juridique de son interprétation, mais
>> je tenais tout de même à vous partager l'information
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bruno Remy
>>
>> ___
>> 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] ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca

[James]

If you remember what François Paquette sent on this list you wouldnt have
to send the email you just sent:

The CanVec data in OSM format will not be available from Thursday May 5,
1:00 p.m. to Tuesday May 10, 9:00 a.m. (Eastern Time). The maintenance
period may be modified, please refer to the GeoGratis

home
page.


On May 8, 2016 9:44 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:

> Looks like with all the shuffling of products, we've finally lost our
> /OSM/pub folder. Oh well.
>
> I guess that, since all the CanVEC data is now available under OGL-CA, the
> old agreement has been superseded. It would be lovely if everything on
> ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca were OGL-CA, 'cos there's some infrastructure data
> on there that would make me and my chums in the energy biz very happy to
> have on the map.
>
> cheers,
>  Stewart
>
> ___
> 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] ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca

[James]

Seems to be back up for now:

http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/OSM/pub/

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:

> Looks like with all the shuffling of products, we've finally lost our
> /OSM/pub folder. Oh well.
>
> I guess that, since all the CanVEC data is now available under OGL-CA, the
> old agreement has been superseded. It would be lovely if everything on
> ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca were OGL-CA, 'cos there's some infrastructure data
> on there that would make me and my chums in the energy biz very happy to
> have on the map.
>
> cheers,
>  Stewart
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Ft. McMurry Fires

[James]

Hi Dale I'm not sure if you've been following this list previously, but
there was a initiative started already within osm-canada

I've created a HOT project here:
http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/22

But right now OSM is in read only mode as there is a scheduled maintenance
On May 9, 2016 12:12 PM, "Kunce, Dale"  wrote:

> The American Red Cross is potentially sending some teams to do help the
> Canadian Canadian Red Cross with damage assessments in Ft. Mcmurtry and
> other places affected by the recent fires.
>
> As part of the assessment we are potentially going to use OpenMapKit to do
> a building by building assessment. The OSM data looks pretty good for the
> area except that not all buildings are in OSM. The assessment would not
> happen for at least a week or two but we are interested in mapping all of
> the buildings in the affected area from pre-event imagery. No damage
> assessment from satellite imagery will occur.
>
> I’ve already let HOT know but it would be great to have support of the
> OSM-Canada community to help get the work done.
>
> Please let me know if this is something you would be interested in helping
> or leading.
>
> Dale
>
> —
> *Dale Kunce* | Senior Geospatial Engineer and GIS Team Lead  | International
> Services |  American Red Cross
> 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
> Tel 202.303.4095 | Cell 510.842.7523 | Skype dkunce​
>
>
> ___
> 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] Ft. McMurry Fires

[James]

It would definitely be possible, it's just as I've stated previously
nothing can be done until OpenStreetMap maintenance has been completed
(scheduled until tomorrow (GMT))

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Kunce, Dale <dale.ku...@redcross.org>
wrote:

> Don’t worry about the Red Cross coordination for now. I know them and can
> work with them directly them.
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
> —
> Dale Kunce | Senior Geospatial Engineer and GIS Team Lead  | International
> Services |  American Red Cross
> 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Tel 202.303.4095 | Cell 510.842.7523 | Skype dkunce​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/9/16, 12:21 PM, "John Marshall" <rps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Dale,
> >
> >I have ask the CDN Red Cross in Ottawa several times if they would
> >like the CDN OSM community to help. Happy to help.
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >John
> >
> >On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Dale I'm not sure if you've been following this list previously, but
> >> there was a initiative started already within osm-canada
> >>
> >> I've created a HOT project here:
> >> http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/22
> >>
> >> But right now OSM is in read only mode as there is a scheduled
> maintenance
> >>
> >> On May 9, 2016 12:12 PM, "Kunce, Dale" <dale.ku...@redcross.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The American Red Cross is potentially sending some teams to do help the
> >>> Canadian Canadian Red Cross with damage assessments in Ft. Mcmurtry and
> >>> other places affected by the recent fires.
> >>>
> >>> As part of the assessment we are potentially going to use OpenMapKit
> to do
> >>> a building by building assessment. The OSM data looks pretty good for
> the
> >>> area except that not all buildings are in OSM. The assessment would not
> >>> happen for at least a week or two but we are interested in mapping all
> of
> >>> the buildings in the affected area from pre-event imagery. No damage
> >>> assessment from satellite imagery will occur.
> >>>
> >>> I’ve already let HOT know but it would be great to have support of the
> >>> OSM-Canada community to help get the work done.
> >>>
> >>> Please let me know if this is something you would be interested in
> helping
> >>> or leading.
> >>>
> >>> Dale
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> Dale Kunce | Senior Geospatial Engineer and GIS Team Lead  |
> International
> >>> Services |  American Red Cross
> >>> 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
> >>> Tel 202.303.4095 | Cell 510.842.7523 | Skype dkunce
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> 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
> >>
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Ft. McMurry Fires

[James]

Shouldn't be too long, operations team says the master DB is back up as of
2 hours ago
Source:
https://twitter.com/OSM_Tech

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Kunce, Dale <dale.ku...@redcross.org>
wrote:

> Ugh forgot about the Read Only.
>
>
> —
> *Dale Kunce* | Senior Geospatial Engineer and GIS Team Lead  | International
> Services |  American Red Cross
> 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
> Tel 202.303.4095 | Cell 510.842.7523 | Skype dkunce​
>
>
> From: James <james2...@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:24 PM
> To: Dale Kunce <dale.ku...@redcross.org>
> Cc: John Marshall <rps...@gmail.com>, Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <
> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ft. McMurry Fires
>
> It would definitely be possible, it's just as I've stated previously
> nothing can be done until OpenStreetMap maintenance has been completed
> (scheduled until tomorrow (GMT))
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Kunce, Dale <dale.ku...@redcross.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Don’t worry about the Red Cross coordination for now. I know them and can
>> work with them directly them.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>>
>> —
>> Dale Kunce | Senior Geospatial Engineer and GIS Team Lead  |
>> International Services |  American Red Cross
>> 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
>>
>> Tel 202.303.4095 | Cell 510.842.7523 | Skype dkunce​
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/9/16, 12:21 PM, "John Marshall" <rps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Dale,
>> >
>> >I have ask the CDN Red Cross in Ottawa several times if they would
>> >like the CDN OSM community to help. Happy to help.
>> >
>> >Cheers
>> >
>> >John
>> >
>> >On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi Dale I'm not sure if you've been following this list previously, but
>> >> there was a initiative started already within osm-canada
>> >>
>> >> I've created a HOT project here:
>> >> http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/22
>> >>
>> >> But right now OSM is in read only mode as there is a scheduled
>> maintenance
>> >>
>> >> On May 9, 2016 12:12 PM, "Kunce, Dale" <dale.ku...@redcross.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> The American Red Cross is potentially sending some teams to do help
>> the
>> >>> Canadian Canadian Red Cross with damage assessments in Ft. Mcmurtry
>> and
>> >>> other places affected by the recent fires.
>> >>>
>> >>> As part of the assessment we are potentially going to use OpenMapKit
>> to do
>> >>> a building by building assessment. The OSM data looks pretty good for
>> the
>> >>> area except that not all buildings are in OSM. The assessment would
>> not
>> >>> happen for at least a week or two but we are interested in mapping
>> all of
>> >>> the buildings in the affected area from pre-event imagery. No damage
>> >>> assessment from satellite imagery will occur.
>> >>>
>> >>> I’ve already let HOT know but it would be great to have support of the
>> >>> OSM-Canada community to help get the work done.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please let me know if this is something you would be interested in
>> helping
>> >>> or leading.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dale
>> >>>
>> >>> —
>> >>> Dale Kunce | Senior Geospatial Engineer and GIS Team Lead  |
>> International
>> >>> Services |  American Red Cross
>> >>> 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
>> >>> Tel 202.303.4095 | Cell 510.842.7523 | Skype dkunce
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ___
>> >>> 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
>> >>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Fort McMurray forest fires

[James]

Bing imagery is better than mapbox in that region. For addressing do you
mean building by building or CanVec interpolation?
On May 9, 2016 5:11 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> Should we layer this ie one project to map the buildings, another to add
> addresses, the processes are quite different and at the moment its
> difficult to say a tile is done for buildings when the address info hasn't
> been added and that means mappers going over the same tiles multiple times.
> Are we using Mapbox imagery or Bing for this one by the way?
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 9 May 2016 at 16:11, Kunce, Dale  wrote:
>
>> If we can get good pre-event imagery and do the building by building
>> assessment I don’t think we will need post-event imagery but I can be on
>> the lookout for it.
>>
>> Dale
>> —
>> Dale Kunce | Senior Geospatial Engineer and GIS Team Lead  |
>> International Services |  American Red Cross
>> 2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
>>
>> Tel 202.303.4095 | Cell 510.842.7523 | Skype dkunce​
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/9/16, 4:08 PM, "Paul Norman"  wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/9/2016 12:43 PM, Kunce, Dale wrote:
>> >> Bernie,
>> >> I do see that the building footprints are in the esri basemap
>> >> unfortunately this doesn’t actually help. The esri basemap data is
>> >> just an tiled image and does not provide us with the vector data that
>> >> we need to complete our work. I’m happy to take the lead and
>> >> coordinate the mapping. The existing Bing imagery is good enough for
>> >> our needs for tracing.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Any hope of getting post-event imagery, which will allow us to avoid
>> >mapping buildings which no longer exist and shouldn't be in OSM?
>> >
>> >___
>> >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] Fort McMurray forest fires

[James]

I doubt we could use this for validating as its creating a derived work and
unless we have permission
On May 9, 2016 8:20 PM, "Pierre Béland"  wrote:

> Couche Immeubles, cité de Wood Buffalo
> josm tms[19]:
> http://gis-portal-api.elasticbeanstalk.com/arcgis/rest/services/basemaps/vectorBasemap/MapServer/tile/{zoom}/{y}/{x}
>
> On ne peut tracer à partir de cette couche à moins d'obtenir
> l'autorisation de la municipalité. Mais cela permet de comparer immeubles
> avec carte OSM et imagerie Bing. On peut aussi valider les noms de rue dans
> OSM.
>
> Pierre
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires

[James]

Ouin quand tu ote ce polygone le damage estimate n'est plus valide. Tout ce
que tu vois sur mapnik en brun, est brulee. Donc s.v.p le laisser
On May 13, 2016 9:14 PM, "Pierre Béland" <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> James,
>
> je ne vais pas enlever d'infos sans en discuter.
>
> J'ai Créé une carte uMap où j'ai exclu ce polygone pour plus de visibilité.
> voir
> http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/fort-mcmurray-fire-most-affected-zones_85549
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> --
> *De :* James <james2...@gmail.com>
> *À :* Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr>
> *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Envoyé le :* vendredi 13 mai 2016 20h55
> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires
>
> s.v.p. ne pas ôter ce way, car il est important aussi
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> oui conserver les polygones a l'intérieur, et enlever way=417984298?
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/417984298
>
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> --
> *De :* James <james2...@gmail.com>
> *À :* Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr>
> *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Envoyé le :* vendredi 13 mai 2016 20h46
>
> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires
>
> Les brownfields à l'intérieur du grand poligone est parce que c'était des
> zones residentielles, mais ils vont être reconstruits plus tard, et j'aime
> mieux ne pas les supprimées
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> James, pour faciliter la gestion de ces objets, j'ai ajouté la clé
> damage:event=2016-05-Fort-McMurray
> way=417984298, landuse=brownfield
> a l'intérieur de ce polygone on retrouve d'autres landuse=brownfield.
>
> enlever  way=417984298?
>
> Pierre
>
>
> --
> *De :* James <james2...@gmail.com>
> *À :* Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
> *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Envoyé le :* vendredi 13 mai 2016 20h16
> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires
>
> Hello everyone OsmCanada had a meeting tonight and have traced polygons
> estimating the areas damaged and have named them "Fort McMurray Fire Damage
> Estimate". They are tagged as brownfield as the buildings have been
> destroyed or burnt down. The major areas affected are Thickwood, Beacon
> Hill and Abasand. We thought this may help the red cross immensely.
>
> Big thank you to Rps333 for the help.
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Dale is the American Red Cross GIS Team Lead. I'm on his team and have
> been deployed to Canada to work in-person with the Canadian Red Cross. In
> terms of OSM-CA / Red Cross coordination, I can be considered the point of
> contact on the RC side until someone within Canadian Red Cross is ready and
> willing to take it on.
>
> All the best,
> Dan
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:44 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Have you talked to dale.ku...@redcross.org?
>
> A coordinated approach might be better.  OSM can use data obtained through
> the Gov Canada open data portal and has done in the past as far as I am
> aware.
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 13 May 2016 at 14:37, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> It looks like some good progress is being made on the tasks.
>
> Tasks #22 and #23 are focused on mapping different features but it looks
> like #24 overlaps in focus. Perhaps that task should be archived until the
> other two are completed to avoid confusion among newcomers to the site?
>
> Task #23 only provides minimal instructions (*Add address data via
> GeoBase. Add missing Roads and Street names.*). Would more people feel
> comfortable contributing if detailed instructions were included? It seemed
> the task is referring to the dataset described here:
> http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geobase/official/nrn_rrn/doc/NRN.pdf
> Is the Canada open government licence compatible with OSM?
>
> Thanks and all the best,
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What exactly do you need of me? Prioritize areas to get mapped? We have
> tasks for the buildings, addresses and streets(which I think have been
> imported via CanVec) and a validation layer
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm helping coordinate the Canadian R

Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires

[James]

Our OSMCanada team (the one that runs the Tasking manager) is based in
Ottawa. We are currently at the Happy Goat Coffee.
Our meeting scheduling is available here:
http://www.meetup.com/openstreetmap-ottawa

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Bruno Remy <bremy.qc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Does any local OpenStreetMap local team organize mapathon events working
> around tasks #22,#23,#24 ?
>
> I mean perhaps Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal ?
>
> Here in Québec city, the community is small , so few volonteers engaged
> ... but why not trying ?
> Le 13 mai 2016 8:17 PM, "James" <james2...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Hello everyone OsmCanada had a meeting tonight and have traced polygons
>> estimating the areas damaged and have named them "Fort McMurray Fire Damage
>> Estimate". They are tagged as brownfield as the buildings have been
>> destroyed or burnt down. The major areas affected are Thickwood, Beacon
>> Hill and Abasand. We thought this may help the red cross immensely.
>>
>> Big thank you to Rps333 for the help.
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Dale is the American Red Cross GIS Team Lead. I'm on his team and have
>>> been deployed to Canada to work in-person with the Canadian Red Cross. In
>>> terms of OSM-CA / Red Cross coordination, I can be considered the point of
>>> contact on the RC side until someone within Canadian Red Cross is ready and
>>> willing to take it on.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:44 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you talked to dale.ku...@redcross.org?
>>>>
>>>> A coordinated approach might be better.  OSM can use data obtained
>>>> through the Gov Canada open data portal and has done in the past as far as
>>>> I am aware.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks John
>>>>
>>>> On 13 May 2016 at 14:37, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like some good progress is being made on the tasks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tasks #22 and #23 are focused on mapping different features but it
>>>>> looks like #24 overlaps in focus. Perhaps that task should be archived
>>>>> until the other two are completed to avoid confusion among newcomers to 
>>>>> the
>>>>> site?
>>>>>
>>>>> Task #23 only provides minimal instructions (*Add address data via
>>>>> GeoBase. Add missing Roads and Street names.*). Would more people
>>>>> feel comfortable contributing if detailed instructions were included? It
>>>>> seemed the task is referring to the dataset described here:
>>>>> http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geobase/official/nrn_rrn/doc/NRN.pdf
>>>>>   Is the Canada open government licence compatible with OSM?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and all the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What exactly do you need of me? Prioritize areas to get mapped? We
>>>>>> have tasks for the buildings, addresses and streets(which I think have 
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> imported via CanVec) and a validation layer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm helping coordinate the Canadian Red Cross' use of GIS in their
>>>>>>> activities responding to the Fort McMurray fires. Staff has been very 
>>>>>>> busy
>>>>>>> but we're ramping up and exploring options for how to leverage different
>>>>>>> tools and data sources to support the Red Cross operations. The focus 
>>>>>>> is on
>>>>>>> the evacuees, many of which have dispersed to distant locations around 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> country. When residents are allowed to return to the town and 
>>>>>>> longer-term
>>>>>>> recovery activities become a priority, I foresee having an excelle

Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires

[James]

Hello everyone OsmCanada had a meeting tonight and have traced polygons
estimating the areas damaged and have named them "Fort McMurray Fire Damage
Estimate". They are tagged as brownfield as the buildings have been
destroyed or burnt down. The major areas affected are Thickwood, Beacon
Hill and Abasand. We thought this may help the red cross immensely.

Big thank you to Rps333 for the help.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Dale is the American Red Cross GIS Team Lead. I'm on his team and have
> been deployed to Canada to work in-person with the Canadian Red Cross. In
> terms of OSM-CA / Red Cross coordination, I can be considered the point of
> contact on the RC side until someone within Canadian Red Cross is ready and
> willing to take it on.
>
> All the best,
> Dan
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:44 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Have you talked to dale.ku...@redcross.org?
>>
>> A coordinated approach might be better.  OSM can use data obtained
>> through the Gov Canada open data portal and has done in the past as far as
>> I am aware.
>>
>> Thanks John
>>
>> On 13 May 2016 at 14:37, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> It looks like some good progress is being made on the tasks.
>>>
>>> Tasks #22 and #23 are focused on mapping different features but it looks
>>> like #24 overlaps in focus. Perhaps that task should be archived until the
>>> other two are completed to avoid confusion among newcomers to the site?
>>>
>>> Task #23 only provides minimal instructions (*Add address data via
>>> GeoBase. Add missing Roads and Street names.*). Would more people feel
>>> comfortable contributing if detailed instructions were included? It seemed
>>> the task is referring to the dataset described here:
>>> http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geobase/official/nrn_rrn/doc/NRN.pdf
>>> Is the Canada open government licence compatible with OSM?
>>>
>>> Thanks and all the best,
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What exactly do you need of me? Prioritize areas to get mapped? We have
>>>> tasks for the buildings, addresses and streets(which I think have been
>>>> imported via CanVec) and a validation layer
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm helping coordinate the Canadian Red Cross' use of GIS in their
>>>>> activities responding to the Fort McMurray fires. Staff has been very busy
>>>>> but we're ramping up and exploring options for how to leverage different
>>>>> tools and data sources to support the Red Cross operations. The focus is 
>>>>> on
>>>>> the evacuees, many of which have dispersed to distant locations around the
>>>>> country. When residents are allowed to return to the town and longer-term
>>>>> recovery activities become a priority, I foresee having an excellent OSM
>>>>> base layer as being a valuable asset. Both for facilitating operational
>>>>> decisions, and demonstrating the power of the OSM community and easily
>>>>> accessible geo-data with an open license!
>>>>>
>>>>> I would love to connect with those involved in coordinating the
>>>>> current tasks up on http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/. Is the best channel
>>>>> of communication through this list or via Skype or some other means?
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>> Dan Joseph
>>>>>
>>>>> GIS Officer | International Services | American Red Cross
>>>>> Skype danielbjoseph  |  Twitter @danbjoseph  |  OSM ID danbjoseph
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires

[James]

Les brownfields à l'intérieur du grand poligone est parce que c'était des
zones residentielles, mais ils vont être reconstruits plus tard, et j'aime
mieux ne pas les supprimées

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> James, pour faciliter la gestion de ces objets, j'ai ajouté la clé
> damage:event=2016-05-Fort-McMurray
> way=417984298, landuse=brownfield
> a l'intérieur de ce polygone on retrouve d'autres landuse=brownfield.
>
> enlever  way=417984298?
>
> Pierre
>
>
> --
> *De :* James <james2...@gmail.com>
> *À :* Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
> *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Envoyé le :* vendredi 13 mai 2016 20h16
> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires
>
> Hello everyone OsmCanada had a meeting tonight and have traced polygons
> estimating the areas damaged and have named them "Fort McMurray Fire Damage
> Estimate". They are tagged as brownfield as the buildings have been
> destroyed or burnt down. The major areas affected are Thickwood, Beacon
> Hill and Abasand. We thought this may help the red cross immensely.
>
> Big thank you to Rps333 for the help.
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Dale is the American Red Cross GIS Team Lead. I'm on his team and have
> been deployed to Canada to work in-person with the Canadian Red Cross. In
> terms of OSM-CA / Red Cross coordination, I can be considered the point of
> contact on the RC side until someone within Canadian Red Cross is ready and
> willing to take it on.
>
> All the best,
> Dan
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:44 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Have you talked to dale.ku...@redcross.org?
>
> A coordinated approach might be better.  OSM can use data obtained through
> the Gov Canada open data portal and has done in the past as far as I am
> aware.
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 13 May 2016 at 14:37, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> It looks like some good progress is being made on the tasks.
>
> Tasks #22 and #23 are focused on mapping different features but it looks
> like #24 overlaps in focus. Perhaps that task should be archived until the
> other two are completed to avoid confusion among newcomers to the site?
>
> Task #23 only provides minimal instructions (*Add address data via
> GeoBase. Add missing Roads and Street names.*). Would more people feel
> comfortable contributing if detailed instructions were included? It seemed
> the task is referring to the dataset described here:
> http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geobase/official/nrn_rrn/doc/NRN.pdf
> Is the Canada open government licence compatible with OSM?
>
> Thanks and all the best,
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What exactly do you need of me? Prioritize areas to get mapped? We have
> tasks for the buildings, addresses and streets(which I think have been
> imported via CanVec) and a validation layer
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm helping coordinate the Canadian Red Cross' use of GIS in their
> activities responding to the Fort McMurray fires. Staff has been very busy
> but we're ramping up and exploring options for how to leverage different
> tools and data sources to support the Red Cross operations. The focus is on
> the evacuees, many of which have dispersed to distant locations around the
> country. When residents are allowed to return to the town and longer-term
> recovery activities become a priority, I foresee having an excellent OSM
> base layer as being a valuable asset. Both for facilitating operational
> decisions, and demonstrating the power of the OSM community and easily
> accessible geo-data with an open license!
>
> I would love to connect with those involved in coordinating the current
> tasks up on http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/. Is the best channel of
> communication through this list or via Skype or some other means?
>
> All the best,
> Dan Joseph
>
> GIS Officer | International Services | American Red Cross
> Skype danielbjoseph  |  Twitter @danbjoseph  |  OSM ID danbjoseph
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires

[James]

s.v.p. ne pas ôter ce way, car il est important aussi

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> oui conserver les polygones a l'intérieur, et enlever way=417984298?
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/417984298
>
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> ------
> *De :* James <james2...@gmail.com>
> *À :* Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr>
> *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Envoyé le :* vendredi 13 mai 2016 20h46
>
> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires
>
> Les brownfields à l'intérieur du grand poligone est parce que c'était des
> zones residentielles, mais ils vont être reconstruits plus tard, et j'aime
> mieux ne pas les supprimées
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> James, pour faciliter la gestion de ces objets, j'ai ajouté la clé
> damage:event=2016-05-Fort-McMurray
> way=417984298, landuse=brownfield
> a l'intérieur de ce polygone on retrouve d'autres landuse=brownfield.
>
> enlever  way=417984298?
>
> Pierre
>
>
> --
> *De :* James <james2...@gmail.com>
> *À :* Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
> *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Envoyé le :* vendredi 13 mai 2016 20h16
> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires
>
> Hello everyone OsmCanada had a meeting tonight and have traced polygons
> estimating the areas damaged and have named them "Fort McMurray Fire Damage
> Estimate". They are tagged as brownfield as the buildings have been
> destroyed or burnt down. The major areas affected are Thickwood, Beacon
> Hill and Abasand. We thought this may help the red cross immensely.
>
> Big thank you to Rps333 for the help.
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Dale is the American Red Cross GIS Team Lead. I'm on his team and have
> been deployed to Canada to work in-person with the Canadian Red Cross. In
> terms of OSM-CA / Red Cross coordination, I can be considered the point of
> contact on the RC side until someone within Canadian Red Cross is ready and
> willing to take it on.
>
> All the best,
> Dan
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:44 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Have you talked to dale.ku...@redcross.org?
>
> A coordinated approach might be better.  OSM can use data obtained through
> the Gov Canada open data portal and has done in the past as far as I am
> aware.
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 13 May 2016 at 14:37, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> It looks like some good progress is being made on the tasks.
>
> Tasks #22 and #23 are focused on mapping different features but it looks
> like #24 overlaps in focus. Perhaps that task should be archived until the
> other two are completed to avoid confusion among newcomers to the site?
>
> Task #23 only provides minimal instructions (*Add address data via
> GeoBase. Add missing Roads and Street names.*). Would more people feel
> comfortable contributing if detailed instructions were included? It seemed
> the task is referring to the dataset described here:
> http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geobase/official/nrn_rrn/doc/NRN.pdf
> Is the Canada open government licence compatible with OSM?
>
> Thanks and all the best,
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What exactly do you need of me? Prioritize areas to get mapped? We have
> tasks for the buildings, addresses and streets(which I think have been
> imported via CanVec) and a validation layer
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm helping coordinate the Canadian Red Cross' use of GIS in their
> activities responding to the Fort McMurray fires. Staff has been very busy
> but we're ramping up and exploring options for how to leverage different
> tools and data sources to support the Red Cross operations. The focus is on
> the evacuees, many of which have dispersed to distant locations around the
> country. When residents are allowed to return to the town and longer-term
> recovery activities become a priority, I foresee having an excellent OSM
> base layer as being a valuable asset. Both for facilitating operational
> decisions, and demonstrating the power of the OSM community and easily
> accessible geo-data with an open license!
>
> I would love to connect with those involved in coordinating the current
> tasks up on http://tasks.os

Re: [Talk-ca] help

[James]

Wrong email...
talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org

Not talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
On May 14, 2016 12:18 AM, "Matthew Woodall" <m.g.woodal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please unsubscribe me from this mailing list.  Thank you!
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:21 PM, <talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
>> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires (James)
>>2. Re: [Talk-us] ImproveOSM data refresh and some updates
>>   (Hans De Kryger)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:29:14 -0400
>> From: James <james2...@gmail.com>
>> To: Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr>
>> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> cank4qi8twb_nehlneg5s30my7hfzthodxhfd0wao6nzn6wj...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Ouin quand tu ote ce polygone le damage estimate n'est plus valide. Tout
>> ce
>> que tu vois sur mapnik en brun, est brulee. Donc s.v.p le laisser
>> On May 13, 2016 9:14 PM, "Pierre Béland" <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > James,
>> >
>> > je ne vais pas enlever d'infos sans en discuter.
>> >
>> > J'ai Créé une carte uMap où j'ai exclu ce polygone pour plus de
>> visibilité.
>> > voir
>> >
>> http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/fort-mcmurray-fire-most-affected-zones_85549
>> >
>> >
>> > Pierre
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > *De :* James <james2...@gmail.com>
>> > *À :* Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr>
>> > *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
>> > *Envoyé le :* vendredi 13 mai 2016 20h55
>> > *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires
>> >
>> > s.v.p. ne pas ôter ce way, car il est important aussi
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > oui conserver les polygones a l'intérieur, et enlever way=417984298?
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/417984298
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Pierre
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > *De :* James <james2...@gmail.com>
>> > *À :* Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr>
>> > *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
>> > *Envoyé le :* vendredi 13 mai 2016 20h46
>> >
>> > *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires
>> >
>> > Les brownfields à l'intérieur du grand poligone est parce que c'était
>> des
>> > zones residentielles, mais ils vont être reconstruits plus tard, et
>> j'aime
>> > mieux ne pas les supprimées
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > James, pour faciliter la gestion de ces objets, j'ai ajouté la clé
>> > damage:event=2016-05-Fort-McMurray
>> > way=417984298, landuse=brownfield
>> > a l'intérieur de ce polygone on retrouve d'autres landuse=brownfield.
>> >
>> > enlever  way=417984298?
>> >
>> > Pierre
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > *De :* James <james2...@gmail.com>
>> > *À :* Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
>> > *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
>> > *Envoyé le :* vendredi 13 mai 2016 20h16
>> > *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires
>> >
>> > Hello everyone OsmCanada had a meeting tonight and have traced polygons
>> > estimating the areas damaged and have named them "Fort McMurray Fire
>> Damage
>> > Estimate"

Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires

[James]

What exactly do you need of me? Prioritize areas to get mapped? We have
tasks for the buildings, addresses and streets(which I think have been
imported via CanVec) and a validation layer

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dan Joseph  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm helping coordinate the Canadian Red Cross' use of GIS in their
> activities responding to the Fort McMurray fires. Staff has been very busy
> but we're ramping up and exploring options for how to leverage different
> tools and data sources to support the Red Cross operations. The focus is on
> the evacuees, many of which have dispersed to distant locations around the
> country. When residents are allowed to return to the town and longer-term
> recovery activities become a priority, I foresee having an excellent OSM
> base layer as being a valuable asset. Both for facilitating operational
> decisions, and demonstrating the power of the OSM community and easily
> accessible geo-data with an open license!
>
> I would love to connect with those involved in coordinating the current
> tasks up on http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/. Is the best channel of
> communication through this list or via Skype or some other means?
>
> All the best,
> Dan Joseph
>
> GIS Officer | International Services | American Red Cross
> Skype danielbjoseph  |  Twitter @danbjoseph  |  OSM ID danbjoseph
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Red Cross and Fort McMurray Fires

[James]

Yes CanVec data is compatible with OSM as there was an agreement between
the Canadian gov and osm in the past. NRCan even serves up osm files for
their CanVec Data here: http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/OSM/pub/

#24 is to go deeper as in validating that data imported/mapped in 22 and 23
as some mappers might not be experts in validating data and there might be
technical issues like bridges/streets that are semantically correct, but
not technically correct (in this example you have to say that one street
passes over another with the layer tag and a bridge tag)

You could consider 22 and 23 as a "quick" mapping. Where as 24 is
correcting technical issues that more experienced users (like andrew and
john :P) can point out/fix problems

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> It looks like some good progress is being made on the tasks.
>
> Tasks #22 and #23 are focused on mapping different features but it looks
> like #24 overlaps in focus. Perhaps that task should be archived until the
> other two are completed to avoid confusion among newcomers to the site?
>
> Task #23 only provides minimal instructions (*Add address data via
> GeoBase. Add missing Roads and Street names.*). Would more people feel
> comfortable contributing if detailed instructions were included? It seemed
> the task is referring to the dataset described here:
> http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geobase/official/nrn_rrn/doc/NRN.pdf
> Is the Canada open government licence compatible with OSM?
>
> Thanks and all the best,
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What exactly do you need of me? Prioritize areas to get mapped? We have
>> tasks for the buildings, addresses and streets(which I think have been
>> imported via CanVec) and a validation layer
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dan Joseph <dan.b.jos...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I'm helping coordinate the Canadian Red Cross' use of GIS in their
>>> activities responding to the Fort McMurray fires. Staff has been very busy
>>> but we're ramping up and exploring options for how to leverage different
>>> tools and data sources to support the Red Cross operations. The focus is on
>>> the evacuees, many of which have dispersed to distant locations around the
>>> country. When residents are allowed to return to the town and longer-term
>>> recovery activities become a priority, I foresee having an excellent OSM
>>> base layer as being a valuable asset. Both for facilitating operational
>>> decisions, and demonstrating the power of the OSM community and easily
>>> accessible geo-data with an open license!
>>>
>>> I would love to connect with those involved in coordinating the current
>>> tasks up on http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/. Is the best channel of
>>> communication through this list or via Skype or some other means?
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>> Dan Joseph
>>>
>>> GIS Officer | International Services | American Red Cross
>>> Skype danielbjoseph  |  Twitter @danbjoseph  |  OSM ID danbjoseph
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Fort McMurray forest fires

[James]

They may have a city GIS team, but is that data publically available? Nope.
Heck their "server" might even be toast as most of the city is going up in
flames. Better to have data available, then none at all.

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:36 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not so sure of how much value this is.  HOT doesn't activate until it
> gets a request from the ground for that reason.  If it does then we get two
> tile systems over the same area.
>
> Fort McMurray almost certainly has a City GIS system that has details of
> every building, Ottawa certainly does.  The roads and highways are also
> available in CANVEC for firefighters etc.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 5 May 2016 at 11:45, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've created a task on my tasking manager for buildings in Fort McMurray.
>> Tracing buildings can help us flag buildings affected by the fire
>>
>> http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/22
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:43 AM, John Marshall <rps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I will check with my contacts in my day job if they will release thier
>>> imagery.
>>>
>>> I know DigitalGlobe are tasking thier satellites over Fort Mac.
>>>
>>> John Marshall
>>> On May 5, 2016 11:39, "James" <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we'll have to wait until the fire is put out before we get
>>>> satelite imagery.
>>>> What I can do is create a task on tasks.osmcanada.ca for Fort McMurray
>>>> and we can trace buildings as they are not all there
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Andrew MacKinnon <andrew...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As you are probably aware by now, a large portion of Fort McMurray,
>>>>> Alberta has been destroyed by forest fires.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is any freely licensed aerial imagery of the affected area available
>>>>> yet? Will the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap team be creating a project
>>>>> for Fort McMurray?
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Fort McMurray forest fires

[James]

I think we'll have to wait until the fire is put out before we get satelite
imagery.
What I can do is create a task on tasks.osmcanada.ca for Fort McMurray and
we can trace buildings as they are not all there

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Andrew MacKinnon 
wrote:

> As you are probably aware by now, a large portion of Fort McMurray,
> Alberta has been destroyed by forest fires.
>
> Is any freely licensed aerial imagery of the affected area available
> yet? Will the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap team be creating a project
> for Fort McMurray?
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Fort McMurray - Canadian volunteer as a point of contact

[James]

Kevin I wasnt sure if it was to trace things in openstreetmap or for
something else involving geographical data

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Kevin Farrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> According to Paul Norman in an earlier email that licence isn't compatible
> with OSM's.
> On May 10, 2016 1:47 PM, "James" <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Planet has released FMM satelite imagery as CC-BY-SA
>> https://www.planet.com/pulse/fort-mcmurray-wildfire/
>>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Heather Leson <heatherle...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> HI Bernie, someone contacted me off list. I am working to coordinate.
>>> Just got off the phone with the CanVost liaison to learn more first.
>>>
>>> There is satellite imagery but the licenses are not ideal (yet).
>>>
>>> CanVOST - Canadian Virtual Operations Support Team.
>>>
>>> Heather
>>>
>>> Heather Leson
>>> heatherle...@gmail.com
>>> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
>>> Blog: textontechs.com
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Bernie Connors <bernie.conn...@unb.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is anybody following up on this opportunity to liaise with the emergency 
>>>> managers in Fort McMurray? They are looking for an Albertan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Morning from Doha.
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned previously there are emergency managers trying to get 
>>>> imagery.
>>>> This is their first time considering digital volunteers. If I can have 
>>>> one
>>>> Canadian volunteer as a point of contact I can hand off the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Note: they would really love it if it was someone from alberta. 
>>>> However, i
>>>> think someone who can work on what is needed is also great.
>>>>
>>>> Heather - heatherleson at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bernie Connors
>>>> New Maryland, NB
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Fort McMurray - Canadian volunteer as a point of contact

[James]

Planet has released FMM satelite imagery as CC-BY-SA
https://www.planet.com/pulse/fort-mcmurray-wildfire/

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Heather Leson 
wrote:

> HI Bernie, someone contacted me off list. I am working to coordinate. Just
> got off the phone with the CanVost liaison to learn more first.
>
> There is satellite imagery but the licenses are not ideal (yet).
>
> CanVOST - Canadian Virtual Operations Support Team.
>
> Heather
>
> Heather Leson
> heatherle...@gmail.com
> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
> Blog: textontechs.com
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Bernie Connors 
> wrote:
>
>> Is anybody following up on this opportunity to liaise with the emergency 
>> managers in Fort McMurray? They are looking for an Albertan
>>
>>
>> Morning from Doha.
>>
>> As mentioned previously there are emergency managers trying to get 
>> imagery.
>> This is their first time considering digital volunteers. If I can have 
>> one
>> Canadian volunteer as a point of contact I can hand off the discussion.
>>
>> Note: they would really love it if it was someone from alberta. However, 
>> i
>> think someone who can work on what is needed is also great.
>>
>> Heather - heatherleson at gmail.com
>>
>> --
>> Bernie Connors
>> New Maryland, NB
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Fort McMurray forest fires

[James]

If you count a tweet as permission:
https://twitter.com/rps333/status/729983088701267968
On May 10, 2016 2:29 AM, "Paul Norman"  wrote:

> On 5/9/2016 11:17 PM, Heather Leson wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks
>>
>> Planet Labs opened up their imagery with an OSM friendly license
>>
>> https://www.planet.com/pulse/fort-mcmurray-wildfire/
>>
>>
> The license on there (CC BY-SA) is not suitable for deriving data for use
> in OSM with - do we have a special permission from them documented
> somewhere? Without it we can't use the imagery.
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping tun restrictions in Canada

[James]

Seems someone that is inexperienced edited the Carling/Woodruff
intersection. That part of town has a lot of invalid things like that and
need to be corrected.

On Jul 27, 2016 1:38 PM, "Manohar Erikipati"  wrote:

> Hey there,
> Thank you for your reply Andrew MacKinnon. Status update : We mapped 110
> turn restrictions in the last 2 days in Canada. We have faced an issue we
> would love some feedback on (
> https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/213#issuecomment-235214856).
>
> Cheers,
> Manohar Erikipati
>
> ___
> 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] New project with OSM at Statistics Canada

[James]

For Gatineau, I've been manually tracing buildings via this project:

http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/1
The yellow squares are the ones I completed in tracing the buildings, so
during the review stage, the work could be compared to what Gatineau gives
you to make sure everything is correct and not any missing buildings(old
Satellite imagery data)

We could use
http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/2
For Ottawa, I've not started on this yet, as Gatineau has a lot of
buildings and I am not even near completing it.

One of the major issues will be merging with the existing data, that's why
I think a tasking manager will be appropriate for the task. There is also
the licensing issue(I think you've covered this in the past).

Gatineau currently has all address points in OSM so no need to combine them
with the buildings. Ottawa does not due to licensing issues.

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:

> Hi James,
>
>
>
> We are working in partnerships with both municipalities of Ottawa and
> Gatineau. So far, Ottawa has given us two files. One is a large buildings
> file available through their open data portal. It contains about 16 000
> building footprints.  The other is a larger file with over 300 000
> buildings in it. That one contains footprints that are not on OSM after a
> quick look through.
>
>
>
> John mentioned that the best way to make it available is through the TB
> open data portal so I am going to look into that.
>
>
>
> We are talking with Gatineau and they will join the project. I will give
> updates on how this is going.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>
>
>
> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et
> l’intégration de données (LEID)
>
> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les
> entreprises
>
> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
>
> (343) 998-3004
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* July-18-16 4:58 PM
> *To:* Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] New project with OSM at Statistics Canada
>
>
>
> Should be pretty easy on the Gatineau sode as all the address points are
> there, as for Ottawa, not so much until they decide to change their license
>
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2016 11:28 AM, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
> Dear members of the Board of Directors,
>
>
>
> My name is Bjenk Ellefsen. I am working for the Data Exploration and
> Integration Lab at Statistics Canada.
>
>
>
> I am writing to inform you that earlier this month, Statistics Canada
> initiated a two-year pilot project aimed at understanding the potential of
> data crowdsourcing for statistical purposes.
>
>
>
> We are planning to use OpenStreetMap as a platform for inviting
> contributors to crowdsource information on non-residential buildings
> (footprints, addresses and simple building attributes). The pilot project
> will focus on the Ottawa-Gatineau region.
>
>
>
> We have assembled a multi-disciplinary project team, which includes people
> from five divisions of Statistics Canada and also from the municipalities
> of Ottawa and Gatineau.
>
>
>
> In November of last year, my chief, Alessandro Alasia, spoke with Paul
> Norman. At that time, we were exploring the idea of crowdsourcing. We have
> done quite a lot of background research and planning since then (although
> much learning remains to be done). The preliminary idea has evolved in a
> proof of concept proposal and, from there, into the current project.
>
>
>
> Earlier this month we held a first meeting/conference call with the local
> (Canada/Ottawa) OSM community. We hope to strengthen these ties further in
> the coming months by engaging the OSM community through Talk-ca.
>
>
>
> This pilot project is a major innovative undertaking for our Agency. There
> are a multitude of aspects that we need to assess and learn about
> (including the IT dimension, communications,  legal aspects, etc.).
>
>
>
> For this reason, there is also a lot of excitement about the project and
> much curiosity from senior management. We know that crowdsourcing is a
> reality but, as far as I know, there has been no other attempt to assess
> its potential from the perspective of a national statistical office.
>
>
>
> One of our Assistant Chief Statisticians, in particular, who is
> championing the innovation projects at Statistics Canada, has a keen
> interest in this project. At some point, we would like to have an
>

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

[James]

Not sure if this will work if you export it to JOSM but here is an overpass
query that should get all the buildings and address nodes:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/hE6

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:59 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What I'm after is the osm map for the area that way I can load it into
> JOSM and search for buildings missing the tags.  Are we adding building
> tags to amenity=place-of_worship?
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 2 August 2016 at 18:17, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> would a GeoJSON help you? I have both city limits in geoJSON format
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:59 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In order to identify those buildings that need extra tags it would be
>>> extremely useful to have a map of Ottawa / Gatineau that could be loaded
>>> into JOSM.  The Ontario map is too big and doesn't contain  Gatineau.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a suitable cut down .OSM file?  I have a web site that
>>> could host it / them.  Even if the data is slightly out of date it would
>>> give us a clue which buildings are lacking building:levels for example and
>>> many of which can be added from memory.  That way only the tiny bit of the
>>> map need be downloaded before being edited in JOSM or what ever the editor
>>> of choice is.
>>>
>>> Thanks John
>>>
>>> On 2 Aug 2016 3:56 pm, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most buildings in Ottawa are wheelchair accessible do you want them
>>>> tagged as such, we also have a tag for toilets:wheelchair
>>>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:toilets:wheelchair> which
>>>> means States if a location has a wheelchair accessible toilet or not.  I
>>>> think this might be useful to map anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Cheerio John
>>>>
>>>> On 2 August 2016 at 14:46, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
>>>> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for
>>>>> OSM:
>>>>>
>>>>> name
>>>>> Address:
>>>>>
>>>>>- Number
>>>>>- street
>>>>>- city
>>>>>- postal code
>>>>>
>>>>> levels
>>>>> office, shop
>>>>> type of access (handicap, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential
>>>>> that would be perfect.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think? Anything else we should add?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>>>>>
>>>>> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration
>>>>> et l’intégration de données (LEID)
>>>>> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur
>>>>> les entreprises
>>>>> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
>>>>> (343) 998-3004
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

would a GeoJSON help you? I have both city limits in geoJSON format

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:59 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> In order to identify those buildings that need extra tags it would be
> extremely useful to have a map of Ottawa / Gatineau that could be loaded
> into JOSM.  The Ontario map is too big and doesn't contain  Gatineau.
>
> Does anyone have a suitable cut down .OSM file?  I have a web site that
> could host it / them.  Even if the data is slightly out of date it would
> give us a clue which buildings are lacking building:levels for example and
> many of which can be added from memory.  That way only the tiny bit of the
> map need be downloaded before being edited in JOSM or what ever the editor
> of choice is.
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 2 Aug 2016 3:56 pm, "john whelan"  wrote:
>
>> Most buildings in Ottawa are wheelchair accessible do you want them
>> tagged as such, we also have a tag for toilets:wheelchair
>>  which means
>> States if a location has a wheelchair accessible toilet or not.  I think
>> this might be useful to map anyway.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 2 August 2016 at 14:46, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
>> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for
>>> OSM:
>>>
>>> name
>>> Address:
>>>
>>>- Number
>>>- street
>>>- city
>>>- postal code
>>>
>>> levels
>>> office, shop
>>> type of access (handicap, etc.)
>>>
>>> If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential
>>> that would be perfect.
>>>
>>> What do you think? Anything else we should add?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>>>
>>> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et
>>> l’intégration de données (LEID)
>>> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur
>>> les entreprises
>>> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
>>> (343) 998-3004
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping exit numbers and destinations in Canada

[James]

I think this wiki article covers how exits should be mapped:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Exit_Info

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Harald Kliems  wrote:

> Hi Manohar:
> It is my understanding that including destinations in the name is an
> artifact of people tagging for the renderer (and/or tagging destinations at
> a time before there was an established tagging scheme). If you search
> through the talk-ca archives, you should be able to find some discussions
> on the topic.
>  Harald.
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:25 AM Manohar Erikipati 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> Turn restriction sprint was met with an amazing response! We loved
>> working with you all on adding turn-restrictions in Canada. We appreciate
>> the timely help and suggestions we got which helped us add correct
>> restrictions and to also maintain the quality of data we were adding on to
>> OpenStreetMap. We hope that this support will continue further, as we are
>> embarking on mapping exit numbers and destinations in the same 5 cities of
>> Canada.
>>
>> We have made an easier workflow [1] with tasking manager [2] for adding
>> exit and destinations. We would like your assistance, participation and
>> continued involvement in the project. We have captured the details of this
>> task here [3].
>>
>> After a preliminary look into the already mapped exit numbers and
>> destinations, we have these observations:
>>
>> - We noticed that `destination` (places, cities) and `destination:ref`
>> (highways) tags are being added to the nodes of exits as `name` tags.
>> - Few exit nodes have destinations given in the `ref` tag.
>> - The `destination:street` (towards streets, avenues, boulevard, rue)
>> tags were not being used.
>>
>> To begin with, we have one question: Destinations given in the name tag
>> of nodes is not usual protocol for adding these tags. We want to make sure
>> whether it is valid or if we could change these tags to the `destination`
>> based tags accordingly. For more details, here's the complete breakdown
>> [4]. To reach out to more audience, we have captured this in a OSM diary
>> post [5]. We would like to hear from the community about the agreed method
>> of mapping exit numbers and destinations to take this forward.
>>
>> 1. https://gist.github.com/manoharuss/3a1b4f640aaf2c052365fcb1ddb09beb
>> 2. http://cfn-tasking-manager-staging-vpc-387856624.us-east-
>> 1.elb.amazonaws.com/project/20
>> 3. https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/220
>> 4. https://gist.github.com/poornibadrinath/9333f1489732c32c3ffadd58e3068b
>> 7e
>> 5. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/poornibadrinath/diary/39246
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Manohar Erikipati
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

The city of los angeles went through the same process(importing buildings)
and this might be useful for the project:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Los_angeles,_California/Buildings_Import

On Aug 3, 2016 11:04 AM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Technically we can add to what is there but that adds volume to the
> database.
>
> We also need to settle on the tags to be used.  I noted the use of
> building=retail I assume that is acceptable as well as commercial.
>
> Another tag used is ele which has the same values as building:levels but I
> hadn't seen it before.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 3 Aug 2016 10:40 am, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
>> We could use only a selection of tags. In the form in the interface we
>> will use, it could be just residential and apartments not be in the choices.
>>
>>
>>
>> We will use the tags reserved for buildings. As John mentioned, malls can
>> have just a few tags and then there are these shops and amenities floating
>> at the same address. Could we have the building and the tags shops,
>> offices, amenities attached to them?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bjenk
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* August-02-16 3:10 PM
>> *To:* john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>; Ellefsen, Bjenk
>> (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> building=apartments should also be considered residential if not they are
>> tagged as offices. There is going to have to be grouping of some tags for
>> residential, commercial and industrial buildings to get a full tally
>>
>> Yeah, terrace homes, duplexes, triplexes, condos may all have unique
>> civic addresses. Apartments may have the the same civic address but also
>> includes an apartment no which needs to be mapped differently then just
>> assigning a address to a building(you are now getting into entraces and
>> addr:flats) example of a terrace home:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2688375179 and
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262705861  this is the way they are
>> doing it in the UK (after many hours in IRC asking how to properly map them)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:03 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> How many buildings are tagged with a building tag or is that step one tag
>> building with the building tag and type?
>>
>> How do we handle a shopping mall with a building outline and a nodes for
>> the stores?
>>
>> Thanks John
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 Aug 2016 2:53 pm, "James" <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is a way to tag a building type
>> Here is a list of the building types:
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building#Values
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2016 2:48 PM, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
>> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for OSM:
>>
>>
>>
>> name
>>
>> Address:
>>
>> · Number
>>
>> · street
>>
>> · city
>>
>> · postal code
>>
>> levels
>>
>> office, shop
>>
>> type of access (handicap, etc.)
>>
>>
>>
>> If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential that
>> would be perfect.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you think? Anything else we should add?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>>
>>
>>
>> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et
>> l’intégration de données (LEID)
>>
>> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur
>> les entreprises
>>
>> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
>>
>> (343) 998-3004
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

We could put it here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ottawa_Gatineau_Buildings

and then link to it from:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa
and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Gatineau

under the data import section. That way people can find the information
much easier

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:

> Great! Should we start a separate wiki page or put it under OSM Canada?
>
>
>
> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* August-03-16 12:28 PM
> *To:* Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>
>
>
> We can. People at State of the map US in seattle really seemed to enjoy
> how well documented it was. Which makes maintenance a bit easier if stuff
> is documented
>
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2016 12:23 PM, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
> The city of los angeles went through the same process(importing buildings)
> and this might be useful for the project:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Los_angeles,_California/Buildings_Import
>
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2016 11:04 AM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Technically we can add to what is there but that adds volume to the
> database.
>
> We also need to settle on the tags to be used.  I noted the use of
> building=retail I assume that is acceptable as well as commercial.
>
> Another tag used is ele which has the same values as building:levels but I
> hadn't seen it before.
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 3 Aug 2016 10:40 am, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
> We could use only a selection of tags. In the form in the interface we
> will use, it could be just residential and apartments not be in the choices.
>
>
>
> We will use the tags reserved for buildings. As John mentioned, malls can
> have just a few tags and then there are these shops and amenities floating
> at the same address. Could we have the building and the tags shops,
> offices, amenities attached to them?
>
>
>
> Bjenk
>
>
>
> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* August-02-16 3:10 PM
> *To:* john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>; Ellefsen, Bjenk
> (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>
>
>
> building=apartments should also be considered residential if not they are
> tagged as offices. There is going to have to be grouping of some tags for
> residential, commercial and industrial buildings to get a full tally
>
> Yeah, terrace homes, duplexes, triplexes, condos may all have unique civic
> addresses. Apartments may have the the same civic address but also includes
> an apartment no which needs to be mapped differently then just assigning a
> address to a building(you are now getting into entraces and addr:flats)
> example of a terrace home: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2688375179
> and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262705861  this is the way they are
> doing it in the UK (after many hours in IRC asking how to properly map them)
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:03 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How many buildings are tagged with a building tag or is that step one tag
> building with the building tag and type?
>
> How do we handle a shopping mall with a building outline and a nodes for
> the stores?
>
> Thanks John
>
>
>
> On 2 Aug 2016 2:53 pm, "James" <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is a way to tag a building type
> Here is a list of the building types:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building#Values
>
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2016 2:48 PM, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
>
> Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for OSM:
>
>
>
> name
>
> Address:
>
> · Number
>
> · street
>
> · city
>
> · postal code
>
> levels
>
> office, shop
>
> type of access (handicap, etc.)
>
>
>
> If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential that
> would be perfect.
>
>
>
> What do you think? Anything else we should add?
>
>
>
>
>
> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>
>
>
> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’explorati

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

[James]

Do you already have a wikipage for Stats Can project? Because I think 1
wiki page per sub project would be best to no confuse the information
provided. You can also create sections under your Stats Can project wiki
page and link to the wiki page with more detailed information if people
need more information they can consult the details.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:

> Could we make that page more encompassing of Canada and the project? Other
> areas might want to get started and it would be great if they could find
> the info as well.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* August-03-16 12:50 PM
> *To:* Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>
>
>
> We could put it here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ottawa_Gatineau_Buildings
>
> and then link to it from:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa
>
> and
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Gatineau
>
> under the data import section. That way people can find the information
> much easier
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
> Great! Should we start a separate wiki page or put it under OSM Canada?
>
>
>
> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* August-03-16 12:28 PM
> *To:* Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>
>
>
> We can. People at State of the map US in seattle really seemed to enjoy
> how well documented it was. Which makes maintenance a bit easier if stuff
> is documented
>
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2016 12:23 PM, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
> The city of los angeles went through the same process(importing buildings)
> and this might be useful for the project:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Los_angeles,_California/Buildings_Import
>
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2016 11:04 AM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Technically we can add to what is there but that adds volume to the
> database.
>
> We also need to settle on the tags to be used.  I noted the use of
> building=retail I assume that is acceptable as well as commercial.
>
> Another tag used is ele which has the same values as building:levels but I
> hadn't seen it before.
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 3 Aug 2016 10:40 am, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
> We could use only a selection of tags. In the form in the interface we
> will use, it could be just residential and apartments not be in the choices.
>
>
>
> We will use the tags reserved for buildings. As John mentioned, malls can
> have just a few tags and then there are these shops and amenities floating
> at the same address. Could we have the building and the tags shops,
> offices, amenities attached to them?
>
>
>
> Bjenk
>
>
>
> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* August-02-16 3:10 PM
> *To:* john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>; Ellefsen, Bjenk
> (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>
>
>
> building=apartments should also be considered residential if not they are
> tagged as offices. There is going to have to be grouping of some tags for
> residential, commercial and industrial buildings to get a full tally
>
> Yeah, terrace homes, duplexes, triplexes, condos may all have unique civic
> addresses. Apartments may have the the same civic address but also includes
> an apartment no which needs to be mapped differently then just assigning a
> address to a building(you are now getting into entraces and addr:flats)
> example of a terrace home: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2688375179
> and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262705861  this is the way they are
> doing it in the UK (after many hours in IRC asking how to properly map them)
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:03 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How many buildings are tagged with a building tag or is that step one tag
> building with the building tag and type?
>
> How do we handle a shopping mall with a building outline and a nodes for
> the stores?
>
> Thanks John
>

[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

We can. People at State of the map US in seattle really seemed to enjoy how
well documented it was. Which makes maintenance a bit easier if stuff is
documented

On Aug 3, 2016 12:23 PM, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:

> The city of los angeles went through the same process(importing buildings)
> and this might be useful for the project:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Los_angeles,_California/Buildings_Import
>
> On Aug 3, 2016 11:04 AM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Technically we can add to what is there but that adds volume to the
>> database.
>>
>> We also need to settle on the tags to be used.  I noted the use of
>> building=retail I assume that is acceptable as well as commercial.
>>
>> Another tag used is ele which has the same values as building:levels but
>> I hadn't seen it before.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 3 Aug 2016 10:40 am, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
>> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> We could use only a selection of tags. In the form in the interface we
>>> will use, it could be just residential and apartments not be in the choices.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We will use the tags reserved for buildings. As John mentioned, malls
>>> can have just a few tags and then there are these shops and amenities
>>> floating at the same address. Could we have the building and the tags
>>> shops, offices, amenities attached to them?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bjenk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* August-02-16 3:10 PM
>>> *To:* john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>; Ellefsen,
>>> Bjenk (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> building=apartments should also be considered residential if not they
>>> are tagged as offices. There is going to have to be grouping of some tags
>>> for residential, commercial and industrial buildings to get a full tally
>>>
>>> Yeah, terrace homes, duplexes, triplexes, condos may all have unique
>>> civic addresses. Apartments may have the the same civic address but also
>>> includes an apartment no which needs to be mapped differently then just
>>> assigning a address to a building(you are now getting into entraces and
>>> addr:flats) example of a terrace home:
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2688375179 and
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262705861  this is the way they are
>>> doing it in the UK (after many hours in IRC asking how to properly map them)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:03 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> How many buildings are tagged with a building tag or is that step one
>>> tag building with the building tag and type?
>>>
>>> How do we handle a shopping mall with a building outline and a nodes for
>>> the stores?
>>>
>>> Thanks John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 Aug 2016 2:53 pm, "James" <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a way to tag a building type
>>> Here is a list of the building types:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building#Values
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 2, 2016 2:48 PM, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
>>> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for
>>> OSM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> name
>>>
>>> Address:
>>>
>>> · Number
>>>
>>> · street
>>>
>>> · city
>>>
>>> · postal code
>>>
>>> levels
>>>
>>> office, shop
>>>
>>> type of access (handicap, etc.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential
>>> that would be perfect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you think? Anything else we should add?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>>>
>>>
>

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

[James]

Should be pretty easy on the Gatineau sode as all the address points are
there, as for Ottawa, not so much until they decide to change their license

On Jul 18, 2016 11:28 AM, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:

> Dear members of the Board of Directors,
>
> My name is Bjenk Ellefsen. I am working for the Data Exploration and
> Integration Lab at Statistics Canada.
>
> I am writing to inform you that earlier this month, Statistics Canada
> initiated a two-year pilot project aimed at understanding the potential of
> data crowdsourcing for statistical purposes.
>
> We are planning to use OpenStreetMap as a platform for inviting
> contributors to crowdsource information on non-residential buildings
> (footprints, addresses and simple building attributes). The pilot project
> will focus on the Ottawa-Gatineau region.
>
> We have assembled a multi-disciplinary project team, which includes people
> from five divisions of Statistics Canada and also from the municipalities
> of Ottawa and Gatineau.
>
> In November of last year, my chief, Alessandro Alasia, spoke with Paul
> Norman. At that time, we were exploring the idea of crowdsourcing. We have
> done quite a lot of background research and planning since then (although
> much learning remains to be done). The preliminary idea has evolved in a
> proof of concept proposal and, from there, into the current project.
>
> Earlier this month we held a first meeting/conference call with the local
> (Canada/Ottawa) OSM community. We hope to strengthen these ties further in
> the coming months by engaging the OSM community through Talk-ca.
>
> This pilot project is a major innovative undertaking for our Agency. There
> are a multitude of aspects that we need to assess and learn about
> (including the IT dimension, communications,  legal aspects, etc.).
>
> For this reason, there is also a lot of excitement about the project and
> much curiosity from senior management. We know that crowdsourcing is a
> reality but, as far as I know, there has been no other attempt to assess
> its potential from the perspective of a national statistical office.
>
> One of our Assistant Chief Statisticians, in particular, who is
> championing the innovation projects at Statistics Canada, has a keen
> interest in this project. At some point, we would like to have an
> “institutional” meeting between Statistics Canada and OSM (although I am
> not quite sure in which shape and form this can take place). I am open to
> your suggestions.
>
> I am copying my colleague Bjenk Ellefsen, who is part of our team and who
> will follow-up on most of the communication with the OSM community on
> Talk-Ca.
>
> I look forward to hearing from you and to engaging the OSM community on
> this project.
>
> I will soon write more about the project!
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>
> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et
> l’intégration de données (LEID)
> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les
> entreprises
> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
> (343) 998-3004
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] New project with OSM at Statistics Canada

[James]

Stewart that lawsuit was dropped, mostly because canada post knew they
couldnt copyright a postal code and also they would have to sue every
online retailer as they have to collect postal code data of their clients
to be able to ship their products

On Jul 18, 2016 10:11 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:

> 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
>
>
> ___
> 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] Improving navigation data in several cities in Canada

[James]

I use to collect imagery for Mapillary, especially around the Ottawa area,
but now I'm collecting street imagery for OpenStreetView.com, which allows
you to download your photos as you still own your photos. They are
releasing more stuff(like public beta, josm plugin, etc) for the SOTM in
Seatle.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:46 AM, maning sambale 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> This is Maning Sambale and I work with the Mapbox' Data team [0].  Our
> team is working on improving carnavigation data in OpenStreetMap.  We
> recently mapped turn-lanes [1] and turn-restrictions [2] in several
> cities in the US.
>
> Right now, we want to extend this mapping to other cities around the
> world. We mainly use Mapillary, hires imagery and other open data
> sources to map.
>
> For Canada, we want to focus on several cities where Mapillary has
> good coverage.  Initial cities are:Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa,
> Calgary, Montreal. Whenever, Mapillary is not available, we will not
> map them.
>
> Before we begin, we want discuss first with the Canadian community.
> We appreciate any idea, tool, reference data that can improve
> navigation data in Canada.
>
> All  mapping projects will be posted in our mapping repo [3].
>
> [0] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapbox#Mapbox_Data_Team
> [1] https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/180
> [2] https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/187
> [3] https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/
> --
>
> cheers,
> maning
> --
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
> --
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

What application were you using to route?
On Jun 28, 2016 2:13 PM, "Nathan Wessel" 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm hoping to get some advice on what to do with a relatively uncommon
> turn restriction tag currently in use in Toronto and Ottawa.
>
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/restriction=no_right_turn_on_red
>
>
> There are about 80 of these 'restriction's in the GTA, and I've noticed
> that they are preventing any right turns when I attempt to route using
> OSRM. I posted about this on the restrictions talk page, here
> ,
> and someone suggested that because the restriction value starts with 'no_',
> it is, and should be, treated like an absolute restriction which prevents
> any turns from the 'from' way to the 'to' way.
>
>
> Anyway, I'm hesitant to outright delete these because I presume they
> contain some potentially useful information, but I also need them to stop
> restricting turns so I can use the data for routing. Maybe these should not
> be 'restriction's, but something else?
>
>
> I'd be happy to make the edits if someone can come up with a good
> suggestion here.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> *Nate Wessel*
> Jack of all trades, master of geography
>
> 1-330-936-2849
>
> Vesalius Design 
>
> ___
> 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] restriction=no_right_turn_on_red causing routing problems in Toronto

[James]

As andrew said might want to file a bug report with them. Do not map for
presentation/an application. The application needs to conform to the data
On Jun 28, 2016 3:25 PM, "Nathan Wessel" <nate.wes...@mail.utoronto.ca>
wrote:

> The signs are pretty common, but the tag is not as there are only about 80
> of them in the GTA and 181 worldwide. I'm wondering if there might be a
> more appropriate way to tag these, instead of tagging them as a
> restriction? Perhaps something like "restriction:signal"="no_turn_on_red",
> so that it doesn't get picked up on a search for the 'restriction' key? I
> don't think the developers are likely to bother checking for such an
> uncommon tag at this point.
>
>
> I'm routing with OSRM <http://project-osrm.org/>, which is also used on
> the homepage of openstreetmap.org.
>
>
> -Nate
>
> --
> *From:* James <james2...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:19:28 PM
> *To:* Nathan Wessel
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] restriction=no_right_turn_on_red causing routing
> problems in Toronto
>
>
> What application were you using to route?
> On Jun 28, 2016 2:13 PM, "Nathan Wessel" <nate.wes...@mail.utoronto.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm hoping to get some advice on what to do with a relatively uncommon
>> turn restriction tag currently in use in Toronto and Ottawa.
>>
>>
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/restriction=no_right_turn_on_red
>>
>>
>> There are about 80 of these 'restriction's in the GTA, and I've noticed
>> that they are preventing any right turns when I attempt to route using
>> OSRM. I posted about this on the restrictions talk page, here
>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction#No_Turn_On_Red>,
>> and someone suggested that because the restriction value starts with 'no_',
>> it is, and should be, treated like an absolute restriction which prevents
>> any turns from the 'from' way to the 'to' way.
>>
>>
>> Anyway, I'm hesitant to outright delete these because I presume they
>> contain some potentially useful information, but I also need them to stop
>> restricting turns so I can use the data for routing. Maybe these should not
>> be 'restriction's, but something else?
>>
>>
>> I'd be happy to make the edits if someone can come up with a good
>> suggestion here.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> *Nate Wessel*
>> Jack of all trades, master of geography
>>
>> 1-330-936-2849
>>
>> Vesalius Design <http://www.vesaliusdesign.com>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Route abandonnée

[James]

Au point que c'est bloqué tu put mettre barrier=yes et apres tu tag le
reste du chemin par access=no

2016-07-05 10:48 GMT-04:00 Pierre Boucher :

> Salut a tous,
> Comment doit-on "tagger" une route ou rue abandonnée depuis un certain
> temps et bloquée par de gros blocs de béton?
>
> Pierre Boucher
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Sujet à discussion: relation multipolygone (natural:forest)

[James]

moi je fais toujours un trou de type "inner" c'est plus propre

2016-08-08 16:30 GMT-04:00 dega :

> Merci Daniel pour tes commentaires.
> Tu as écrit:
> "... le concept de couche additive n'existe pas dans OSM."
>
> Tu as raison. J'ai utilisé des termes nouveaux sans les définir. C'est un
> manque de rigueur de ma part.
> Je n'aurais pas dû utiliser le terme "couche" car il a une signification
> toute particulière pour les dessinateurs et les gens de géomatique.
>
> Je reprend ma description de la problématique.
> Les tuiles CANVEC des Hautes-Laurentides ont été définies comme
> multipolygones de type forêt. Un tel multipolygone couvre l'ensemble de la
> tuile (environ 5000 hectares).
> Certains objets (qu'ont pourrait qualifier d'opaques, tels les lacs, les
> cours d'eau, les routes et les bâtiments) s'affichent par-dessus la forêt
> et, par conséquent, il n´est pas nécessaire de percer un trou dans la forêt.
> Pour définir une clairière, on n'a qu'a percer un trou dans la forêt.
> D'autres objets (tels une carrière ou une zone industrielle) nécessite
> qu'on définisse l'objet et qu'on perce un trou iso-forme dans la forêt.
> Pour plusieurs raisons, cette opération soustractive est impossible à
> faire dans Id et difficile à faire dans Potlatch.
> Je pourrais donner en exemple plusieurs endroits où des rues ont été
> ajoutées mais la forêt n'a pas été mise à jour. Cela laisse croire que les
> rues sont sous les arbres alors que ce n'est pas le cas. C'est une des
> raisons qui font que la forêt du Nord semble si dense car peu de gens ont
> la patience ou l'habileté à percer des trous dans des relations complexes
> qui occupent 5000 hectares.
>
> Je propose l'approche suivante:
> - lorsqu'un cartographe débute une mise-à-jour d'une région qui est
> couverte par une méga-relation de 5000 hectares, qu'il la détruise et la
> remplace par un ensemble d'objets simples ou mini-relations de type forêt.
> - une mini-relation de type forêt ne devrait franchir aucun autre objet
> (chemin, lac, cours d'eau, ligne électrique, landuse, etc). Les objets
> isolés (qui n'ont pas d'accès à l'extérieur de la forêt) nécessiteraient,
> comme présentement, qu'un trou soit percé avec la même forme que l'objet
> qu'on veut y mettre.
> - la pratique actuelle qui consiste à dessiner un lac, un cours d'eau ou
> une route par-dessus la forêt serait à proscrire. L'autre approche serait
> de le permettre, ce qui éliminerait le besoin de percer des trous dans les
> objets "natural:forest" et, par conséquent, de réduire énormement la
> nécessité d'utiliser des relations.
>
> Note: j'ai utilisé le terme "mini-relation" pour les distinguer des
> "méga-relations". Mon intention n'était pas de demander un nouveau type
> d'objet.
>
> Je n'ai pas fait d'analyse exhaustive mais il semblerait que les
> cartographes européens déposent les lacs par-dessus la forêt sans y faire
> de trou.
> À Terre-Neuve, la réserve Avalon est une relation mais "natural:forest"
> n'a pas été utilisé. Les lacs n'ont pas de trou.
>
> Au plaisir de vous lire
>
> dega
>
>
>
> Le 6 août 2016 à 09:07, Begin Daniel  a écrit :
>
>> Bonjour Dega,
>> Je ne suis pas certain de comprendre à quoi tu réfères lorsque tu parles
>> d'un mode additif pour les zones de forêt (natural=wood). Dans l'exemple
>> que tu donnes, il me semble que la forêt n'a simplement pas encore été
>> captée !-)
>>
>> On peut voir le captage de la forêt  comme un captage d'objets
>> distincts...
>> Une forêt est un objet avec un identifiant (id). Les lacs qui se trouvent
>> dans son périmètre sont également des objets qui ont leur propre
>> identifiant. Les trous qu'ils forment dans la forêt sont identifiés via la
>> relation 'inner'. Il n'y a alors pas de duplication d'information.
>>
>> Le problème pour les forêts importées, c'est qu'il y a généralement deux
>> objets pour un même lac - un polygone pour le lac, un polygone pour le trou
>> dans la forêt. C'est une décision qui a été prise par la communauté OSM de
>> l'époque. JOSM identifie ces cas. Il s'agit alors de détruire la composante
>> 'inner' originale (qui n'a pas de tag) et de la remplacer par l'objet lac
>> sous- jacent.
>>
>> Le wiki me semble suffisamment clair pour le captage des forêts (question
>> 2) Il n'y a pas de concept de couche additive. .
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon_Examples
>>
>>
>> Pour en revenir à tes questions...
>> 1)  ...créer de nouvelles relations? Techniquement, les deux approches
>> fonctionnent. Conceptuellement, s'il s'agit de deux objets 'foret' il
>> pourrait être préférable d'avoir deux polygones - mais c'est très théorique.
>> 2) ... plus ce sera difficile. En milieu urbain, la gestion des
>> multipolygones est certainement complexe (pas seulement pour la forêt!-).
>> L'ajout de clairières me semble assez simple, peu importe le nombre de
>> clairières déjà existantes, du moins dans JOSM. Je 

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

[James]

Yeah, that was when I wastracing buildings manually, Gatineau and Ottawa
boundaries should maybe be combined into one project as there is
duplication(overlap) due to how the task manager splits tiles into nice
squares

On Aug 5, 2016 11:50 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:

> 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 redundant (and possibly
> incorrect, if you accidentally go over over a boundary)
> addr:city=Ottawa. Ottawa and Gatineau should have boundary relations in
> place.
>
>  Stewart
>
> ___
> 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

There is a way to tag a building type
Here is a list of the building types:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building#Values

On Aug 2, 2016 2:48 PM, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for OSM:
>
> name
> Address:
>
>- Number
>- street
>- city
>- postal code
>
> levels
> office, shop
> type of access (handicap, etc.)
>
> If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential that
> would be perfect.
>
> What do you think? Anything else we should add?
>
>
> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>
> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et
> l’intégration de données (LEID)
> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les
> entreprises
> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
> (343) 998-3004
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Route verte 8 disparue Saguenay Lac St-Jean et rive sud

[James]

Translation:
Good day

The contributor "silentmapping" has seemed to have destroyed the relation
"Route verte 8" 15 days ago (Modification Changeset: 40809369).

I have written to him to know if he has the intention of recreating it.

Is it possible to revert? I'm not familiar with doing so and not
confortable in doing so.

Thank you

Claude

2016-08-01 14:13 GMT-04:00 Alouette955 :

> Bonjour,
>
> Le contributeur “silentmapping” semble avoir détruit la relation Route
> verte 8 il y a 15 jours (Groupe de modifications : 40809369).
>
> Je viens de lui écrire pour savoir s’il a l’intention de la recréer.
>
> Est-il possible de faire un revert? J’avoue ne pas être à l’aise avec
> cette procédure.
> Merci,
>
> Claude
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

Why wouldn't this be added value to osm? Maybe not in your use case, but
for statistics, disaster relief and even routing this would be valuable to
have on the map.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 8:01 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you really want to add 300,000 building outline to the map?  If it was
> just the non residential ones I think that is reasonable but adding every
> residential house is adding less value.  Can we identify and omit the
> obvious single family homes?
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 3 Aug 2016 7:57 pm, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
>> James,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for this. Comparing with what is already there and the new data
>> is definitely a major first step.
>>
>>
>>
>> For licensing, we are making sure to follow terms and conditions. So far,
>> footprints that we obtained are all cleared for use.
>>
>> Getting addresses is going to be part of the collection stage from
>> participants so we it will be in the fields people can fill out.
>>
>> Hopefully, it helps to complete what’s missing.
>>
>>
>>
>> We will make available about 300 000 buildings for Ottawa soon. Dave and
>> Mojgan suggested methodologies to do the import in segments.
>>
>> We can look into those as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bjenk
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* July-26-16 7:55 AM
>>
>> *To:* Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] New project with OSM at Statistics Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> For Gatineau, I've been manually tracing buildings via this project:
>>
>> http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/1
>>
>> The yellow squares are the ones I completed in tracing the buildings, so
>> during the review stage, the work could be compared to what Gatineau gives
>> you to make sure everything is correct and not any missing buildings(old
>> Satellite imagery data)
>>
>> We could use
>> http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/2
>>
>> For Ottawa, I've not started on this yet, as Gatineau has a lot of
>> buildings and I am not even near completing it.
>>
>> One of the major issues will be merging with the existing data, that's
>> why I think a tasking manager will be appropriate for the task. There is
>> also the licensing issue(I think you've covered this in the past).
>>
>> Gatineau currently has all address points in OSM so no need to combine
>> them with the buildings. Ottawa does not due to licensing issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
>> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>>
>>
>> We are working in partnerships with both municipalities of Ottawa and
>> Gatineau. So far, Ottawa has given us two files. One is a large buildings
>> file available through their open data portal. It contains about 16 000
>> building footprints.  The other is a larger file with over 300 000
>> buildings in it. That one contains footprints that are not on OSM after a
>> quick look through.
>>
>>
>>
>> John mentioned that the best way to make it available is through the TB
>> open data portal so I am going to look into that.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are talking with Gatineau and they will join the project. I will give
>> updates on how this is going.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>>
>>
>>
>> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et
>> l’intégration de données (LEID)
>>
>> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur
>> les entreprises
>>
>> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
>>
>> (343) 998-3004
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* July-18-16 4:58 PM
>> *To:* Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] New project with OSM at Statistics Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> Should be pretty easy on the Gatineau sode as all the address points are
>> there, as for Ottawa, not so much until they decide to change their license
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2016 11:28 AM, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
>> bjenk.ellef...@ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping exit numbers and destinations in Canada

[James]

I dont see why not if we are making the map follow the standards, any
misstagging should probably be corrected

On Aug 16, 2016 5:21 AM, "Manohar Erikipati" <mano...@mapbox.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Thank you Harald, James and Kevin for your replies. We currently follow the 
> proposed mapping methods in the Wiki [1] James had mentioned. We have 
> observed that there are name tags given for junction nodes[2] in which 
> destinations were given. Is this a previously agreed tagging method to render 
> destinations on nodes or is there any particular reason the name tags were 
> given to the junction nodes? Is it okay if we delete these name tags on 
> junction nodes now that we are giving destination, destination:street tags to 
> the  exit ways?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Manohar
>
>
>
> 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Exit_Info
> 2. 
> https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/8921295/17693961/387f991c-63bf-11e6-9a77-988221f47c41.png
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Kevin Farrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes - recently bootprint, andrewpmk, and I have been changing and
>> correcting the name tags to destination in Ontario along the 400-Series
>> highways. If you see a ramp/link that is named, it's fine to change it over
>> to destination or correct a problem you find with it.
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2016 8:38 AM, "Harald Kliems" <kli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Manohar:
>>> It is my understanding that including destinations in the name is an
>>> artifact of people tagging for the renderer (and/or tagging destinations at
>>> a time before there was an established tagging scheme). If you search
>>> through the talk-ca archives, you should be able to find some discussions
>>> on the topic.
>>>  Harald.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:25 AM Manohar Erikipati <mano...@mapbox.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello everyone!
>>>>
>>>> Turn restriction sprint was met with an amazing response! We loved
>>>> working with you all on adding turn-restrictions in Canada. We appreciate
>>>> the timely help and suggestions we got which helped us add correct
>>>> restrictions and to also maintain the quality of data we were adding on to
>>>> OpenStreetMap. We hope that this support will continue further, as we are
>>>> embarking on mapping exit numbers and destinations in the same 5 cities of
>>>> Canada.
>>>>
>>>> We have made an easier workflow [1] with tasking manager [2] for adding
>>>> exit and destinations. We would like your assistance, participation and
>>>> continued involvement in the project. We have captured the details of this
>>>> task here [3].
>>>>
>>>> After a preliminary look into the already mapped exit numbers and
>>>> destinations, we have these observations:
>>>>
>>>> - We noticed that `destination` (places, cities) and `destination:ref`
>>>> (highways) tags are being added to the nodes of exits as `name` tags.
>>>> - Few exit nodes have destinations given in the `ref` tag.
>>>> - The `destination:street` (towards streets, avenues, boulevard, rue)
>>>> tags were not being used.
>>>>
>>>> To begin with, we have one question: Destinations given in the name tag
>>>> of nodes is not usual protocol for adding these tags. We want to make sure
>>>> whether it is valid or if we could change these tags to the `destination`
>>>> based tags accordingly. For more details, here's the complete breakdown
>>>> [4]. To reach out to more audience, we have captured this in a OSM diary
>>>> post [5]. We would like to hear from the community about the agreed method
>>>> of mapping exit numbers and destinations to take this forward.
>>>>
>>>> 1. https://gist.github.com/manoharuss/3a1b4f640aaf2c052365fcb1ddb09beb
>>>> 2. http://cfn-tasking-manager-staging-vpc-387856624.us-east-1.e
>>>> lb.amazonaws.com/project/20
>>>> 3. https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/220
>>>> 4. https://gist.github.com/poornibadrinath/9333f1489732c32c3ffa
>>>> dd58e3068b7e
>>>> 5. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/poornibadrinath/diary/39246
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Manohar Erikipati
>>>> ___
>>>> 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

What I don't understand is even if there was the most open license
possible, you are requiring to get an authorisation to use the data...So
what's the point of having a legal group or dealing with licensing as if a
restrictive copyrighted dataset that sues anyone who uses the data, if we
have express permission that license doesnt apply to us as we have been
added as an exception to the license.

So if I understand correctly Paul, CC0 or any other license would require
permission as a bypass to the license, even though it would be considered
compatible with ODBL. To me this is why licensing exists, to avoid having
to have to manage each licensing use case and says what you can/can't do
with the data.

On Jan 22, 2017 10:08 AM, "John Marshall"  wrote:

> Paul,
>
> So once we get a letter from the City of Ottawa, are we good to add the
> buildings as per the wiki?
>
> John
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:41 AM, john whelan 
> wrote:
>
>> There is another way forward for Stats at the moment and that would be to
>> use the Statistics Canada address file which is available on the Federal
>> Government Open Data portal under the Federal Government Open Data
>> licence.  The addresses are nodes rather than building outlines but there
>> is nothing to stop building:levels, and postcode etc. being added to a node.
>>
>> This was the file that Metrolink used to add addresses in the Toronto
>> area.  It also has the benefit that it uses less storage in the OSM
>> database.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 21 January 2017 at 21:34, john whelan  wrote:
>>
>>> It's to do with the way government works and is structured.  What you
>>> have is an official interpretation which carries weight.  Quite a lot of
>>> weight.
>>>
>>> Essentially both Canada and the UK are run by acts of parliament.
>>> However these are normally interpreted by civil servants to keep things
>>> running smoothly. For example in the UK by an Act of parliament of 1837
>>> bicycles are not permitted to  use the sidewalks but administratively you
>>> will not be prosecuted for cycling on the sidewalk in certain parts of the
>>> UK.  The act hasn't been repealed but it is simply not enforced.  The
>>> decision was taken by a civil servant after consultations but is upheld by
>>> the government.
>>>
>>> The day to day running is done by civil servants interpreting the
>>> minister's wishes or act of Parliament.  There will be discussion and
>>> debate at a greater depth than either a minister or Parliament have the
>>> time for and the decision will be recorded together with the reasons for
>>> and against it.  This can lead to a formal report with a recommendation.
>>> It is a brave manager or minister who doesn't accept the recommendations.
>>> Have a look at Yes Minister and you'll see that brave here means foolish.
>>> There has to be a level of trust between the politicians and the civil
>>> service for this to work.  The direction is set by the politicians but the
>>> day to day stuff by the civil servants.  If a civil servant screws up then
>>> its special assignment time which is the civil service way of terminating
>>> you.  So an interpretation is not given lightly.
>>>
>>> It has taken three or four years of discussion to get this far.  My
>>> understanding is the City of Ottawa licence actually makes reference to the
>>> Federal government licence in the FAQ basically because all the expertise,
>>> hard work and effort on licensing was done at the federal level.
>>>
>>> I think in this case you have to rely on civil servants and retired
>>> civil servants expertise.  Both Bjenk and I are of the opinion, as his his
>>> manager, that for practical purposes the OGL-CA and the Municipal
>>> equivalent are identical.  There are a number of CANVEC employees and
>>> retired employees floating around as well who will have an opinion but I
>>> think it will be supportive.  The open data manager at Ottawa is also of
>>> the same opinion.  My casual contacts at TB on the Open Data side are also
>>> of the same opinion.
>>>
>>> My hope is that we can accept Open Data from municipalities that are
>>> covered by the equivalent of the OGL-CA.  What you seem to be asking for is
>>> a resolution or vote by each municipality of their councillors before OSM
>>> can use the data.  This I think is getting towards the unreasonable and
>>> unwieldy side of things.
>>>
>>> Canadian cities would like to encourage their citizens to walk, cycle
>>> and use public transport.  Tagging which paths maybe used by cycles helps
>>> both sides.  In Ottawa until I sat down with the cycling specialist and
>>> pointed out on their cycle maps one path running through a park was on
>>> their cycle maps and an identical one in the same park wasn't so how was I
>>> to know which could be used?  I was armed with photos from both paths and
>>> of the signs, they were identical.  After that the city expanded its
>>> official 

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

[James]

If someone actually read the introduction, it is saying exactly what Steve
is saying: replacing governing bodies.

This licence is based on version 2.0 of the Open Government Licence –
Canada, which was developed through public consultation. The only
substantive changes in this licence are to replace direct references to the
Government of Canada with the City of Ottawa, replace a reference to the
Federal Privacy Act with a reference to the Ontario Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and remove a reference to the
Federal Court of Canada.

So why is this not considered the exact same as OGL-CA, which is considered
compatible with ODBL?




On Jan 22, 2017 12:36 PM, "Steve Singer" <st...@ssinger.info> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Paul Norman wrote:
>
> On 1/20/2017 6:00 PM, James wrote:
>>
>>> Is OGL-CA not compatible with osm?
>>>
>>
>> The license isn't OGL-CA. OGL-CA is the license from the Federal
>> government, while the City of Ottawa uses the ODL. In the case of OGL-CA
>> data it's compatible because they gave a statement on compatibility.
>>
>
> It seems to me that there are at least three situations that can crop up
> in deciding if we can use data
>
> 1) A reading of the license text allows the use with OSM.  If the text of
> a given license is compatible with the requirements of OSM then  I don't
> see why we need any additional statement.
>
> 2) The compatibility of the license is unclear because of particular terms
> of the license.  A particular government entity then gives us a statement
> saying that they feel the license is compatible with OSM.  That same
> government entity would then have a hard time coming back later and saying
> that the license isn't compatible. However it doesn't tie the hands of
> other government entities that happen to be using the same license.
>
> 3) A particular license might not be compatible with OSM but the
> government entity gives us permission to use their data.  In this case the
> 'permission' is the license.
>
> Why doesn't the OGL 2.0 qualify as compatible under criteria 1? Is there
> any particular term in a templated OGL 2.0 that someone feels is a concern?
>
> Replacing a  variable with 'Government of
> Canada' versus 'City of Ottawa' doesn't change the license.  we see this in
> software licenses all the time. The BSD software license reads 'Regents of
> the University of California' but changing that to the organization that is
> releasing the code doesn't make it no longer be a BSD license.
>
> The whole point of open-data licenses is that people can use the data
> without having to get special permission from the government for each use
> of the data.  Some of the licenses used by Canadian governments in the past
> had clauses that made them not open/suitable. It isn't clear to me what the
> problem is with this license.
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>> ___
>> 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

1. The bad reverted data will be cleaned in the import process (we know
there is a few patches here and there in Ottawa), but Frammy decided to
give up on the revert

2. They will be moved manually in each tile as we were doing before. They
will be moved to the center of the building and merged down to the outline.
Terracing might take longer. Alignment of points is irrelevant if we are
merging them to the polygon outlines as this creates a new data set that
Ottawa does not have (addresses with the polygons)

3. Yes, city and province per address seems a little excessive and grows
the database quite quickly, when you can do a simple spatial join.

4. There is no way to verify if sheds are still there, unless we trespass
on people's properties. Best example of this is:
https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH3 that huge building has been destroyed
to build a new Costco location, this one here:
https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH3 has been demolished this week for
condominiums. This is where local knowledge is essential. Sheds cannot
really be surveyed, so we rather avoid mapping small sheds that might not
be there.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Stewart C. Russell 
wrote:

> 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 things:
>
> 1.  There are still some lurking imported data that the previous
> edits left behind. This could have been due to the reversion
> process
> stopping/failing. An example is the chunk of address nodes around Bank &
> Walkley, such as
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4432919584/history#map=
> 17/45.36977/-75.66044
>
> Is there a decision on what needs to be done to these data?
>
>
> 2.  Does the import process still intend to move (manually?) the
> address points from the lot centres to the building centroids?
> While
> this gives StatCan their building addresses, it does mean that OSM will
> create its own variant of the Ottawa address file that won't align with
> any other data set.
>
>
> 3.  Just to check: the address nodes will only have the
> house number, street and (optionally) unit? The city, province and
> country tags are superfluous because of boundary relations. If StatCan
> want this, we should show them how to do a query that pulls in spatial
> relations.
>
>
> 4.  (weak attempt at humour) The decision to filter out
> outbuildings is, frankly, shedist. A world without huts and
> bothies is
> not one I would wish to live in.
>
>
>  Stewart “Two Sheds” Russell
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

The sources are now available on the city of Ottawa's website. As such was
the major hurdle last time to proceed with the import and it is now taken
care of (http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset/urban-buildings) and the local
community in agreement to proceed, we shall begin to do so in the coming
days.

The documentation has been updated here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan
Please refer to it if you have any questions.

Bye.

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:40 PM, John Marshall <rps...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Great new. The local OSM mappers are looking forward to adding this data
> set.
>
> John Marshall
>
> On Dec 21, 2016 09:41, "James" <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just to give an update, Ottawa has finally approved moving the building
>> outlines to the open data portal. The person responsible is on vacation and
>> will be back the 9th of January 2017 and expect it to be live by the end of
>> that week.
>>
>> So with data source not being publicly available, are there any other
>> road blocks that are stopping this import from progressing?
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Christoph Hormann <chris_horm...@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 25 October 2016, Kevin Farrugia wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Planimetrics represent whatever the ground condition was when the
>>> > data was created and updated, which is almost always done with high
>>> > res orthoimagery. If someone demolishes a shed in their backyard, the
>>> > city would likely need to notice it visually. Every place does it
>>> > differently, but that's likely what happens.
>>>
>>> Actually i was referring to the use of the term "CAD drawings" which
>>> clearly indicates a planning component (with the 'D' standing for
>>> design) - but you probably have just used the term in a different way
>>> than how i understood it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christoph Hormann
>>> http://www.imagico.de/
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Imports mailing list
>>> impo...@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[James]

I have a statement from the city that the ODBL and ODL are inline and pose
no issues from the city's stand point.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan#Explicit_permission

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 doesn't hold Ottawa
> to anything about its data.
>
> The Vancouver data was available to OSM because Paul Norman and Adam
> Williamson[1] got an agreement from the city's Director, Access to
> Information stating that the city's data sets were released in
> accordance with the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of
> Privacy Act[2].
>
> (I'd also recommend Paul Norman's notes on licence compatibility[3]
> linked from the OSM Vancouver page[4]: they explain why all these
> licenses aren't equivalent, and why it's so much work for us to accept
> them.)
>
> What I think - and I say think, because I'm learning too - needs to
> happen is that we ask the City's Access to Information officials:
>
> Can you please confirm in writing that the data sets
>  * (name of data set 1) (url of data set 1)
>  * (name of data set 2) (url of data set 2)
>  * ...
> are released in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Freedom
> of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?
>
> With that confirmation in hand, and the LWG's confirmation (requested by
> me, yesterday) that the City's data licence 2.0 is compatible, then I
> think the matter should go away. Apologies if my approach has appeared
> to change: as I said, I'm learning as I go along.
>
> Best Wishes,
>  Stewart
>
> References:
>
> [1]: “[Talk-ca] [Fwd: Compliance statement] - Vancouver address
> information cleared for OSM use”
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2014-
> February/006037.html>
>
> [2]: “Compliance statement”
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/
> attachments/20140203/c3441d6a/attachment.mht>
>
> [3]: “[Talk-ca] Nanaimo OGL license”
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-
> December/005974.html>
>
> [4]: “Canada:British Columbia:Vancouver”
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:British_
> Columbia:Vancouver#GIS_sources_by_city>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

I've submitted a ticket to the city of Ottawa to fix their links and
requested feedback. The link on the import plan wiki was already up to
date, just not the one on the dataset directly. You can get the direct link
by visiting data.ottawa.ca and from the front page click Read the City of
Ottawa Open Data Licence Version 2.0
<http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0>

01/27/2017 - 14:07 Thank you for providing your feedback to us regarding
ottawa.ca.
Your reference number is 800.
We will provide you with an update on your feedback within 5 business days.
Regards, ServiceOttawa

This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any
distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains
by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. Thank you.

Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville
d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou
des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son
destinataire prévu est interdite. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:02 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#
> open-data-licence-version-2-0
>
> Is the correct link, if it's on the wiki, I'll update it as the city has
> been updating/breaking there data.ottawa.ca
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Michael Reichert <naka...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> Am 2017-01-24 um 21:05 schrieb James:
>> > The sources are now available on the city of Ottawa's website. As such
>> was
>> > the major hurdle last time to proceed with the import and it is now
>> taken
>> > care of (http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset/urban-buildings) and the local
>> > community in agreement to proceed, we shall begin to do so in the coming
>> > days.
>>
>> Thank you for the link to the data. The link to the license on that page
>> (http://ottawa.ca/en/mobile-apps-and-open-data/open-data-lic
>> ence-version-20)
>> returns error 404. archive.org has an archieved version of that page
>> from October 2016 but it would be better if their open data portal
>> contained working links to the license texts.
>>
>> You are in touch with them, aren't you? Could you please ask them to fix
>> that broken link.
>>
>> Please note that this is not a show-stopper.
>>
>> > The documentation has been updated here:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan
>> > Please refer to it if you have any questions.
>>
>> The license (http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data)
>> linked from the wiki page contains the phrase "for any lawful purpose".
>> Is it compatible to OSM? I don't know if it is compatible, I haven't
>> looked if this issue has been solved or is still open. There was some
>> discussion about licenses with such phrases on Legal-talk mailing list
>> some months ago.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> --
>> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
>> ausgenommen)
>> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

Permission should be in the persons own words and not some quest for glory.

We cannot expect to put words in peoples mouths when giving permission by
stating, no sorry try again you should have said it this way or that way ,
oh and you have to do it under surmon in front of the Prime minister as
he's the highest trustworthy authority.

If someone states "I can’t see any issues with it being published to
OpenStreetMap." to me that means it we have the permission to go ahead with
the legal backing of the city of Ottawa. We aren't going to get Jim Watson
to state from his ottawa email that we have the legal write to import the
data as this is what licenses and explicit permission are for.

On Jan 27, 2017 4:18 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:

Note to Dennis:  Apparently it appears that all the data brought in from
the Federal Government Open Data portal and from Vancouver were not brought
in under the Open Data License but under some private arrangement by Paul
Norman.

The Metrolink address data import from the Open Government Portal was
interesting as they actually compared the Federal Government license to the
OSM license and came to the conclusion that it was compatible.  This was
discussed in talk-ca and accepted and it was their independent analysis
that led me to believe we were importing under the federal government's
Open Data license.  Prior to that I was under the impression that Open Data
and OSM did not mix.

Currently we're seeing a lot of references to Open Data in weeklyosm h
ttp://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/8656/
  which leads me to believe OSM
is now more accepting of Open Data.


I really do suggest holding off doing any more until LWG has come up with a
clear answer because I really don't think we have one yet.

Cheerio 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

The only differences I could see is with the province of quebec (OGL-QC),
but they publish their data under CC-BY 4.0 so we just need to ask for
their approval to mark refs on contributors page (indirect reference which
CC-BY requires)

I think it would be logical for other provinces(excluding Quebec, because
they do their own thing) to follow what the federal goverment has put in
place in terms of open data. Obviously they need to replace federal with
municipal, but this shouldnt change the license in itself that allows us to
copy, create, distribute and derive.

If cities are putting their data on public portals it's obviously so the
public will use it, instead of it sitting there doing nothing.


On Jan 25, 2017 3:30 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> I'm under the impression that we are talking about two things.
>
> The first is the Open Data licence which I think we are agreed is roughly
> the same except that BC governments reference the BC privacy law, the
> Ontario ones the Ontario privacy law and the Federal Government references
> the Federal Government privacy law which is what you might expect.
>
> The differences to me are minor.
>
> The second is Paul's letter from a Federal Government civil servant that I
> shall call a letter of interpretation, and it's this letter that makes Paul
> very comfortable with the Federal Government Open Data.
>
> Unfortunately we have been talking licence so the assumption was made that
> the BC government /Vancouver Open Data licence was also acceptable and my
> understanding is some data has been imported and accepted.
>
> I do not believe the differences between the BC and Ontario privacy laws
> are that great that one is acceptable and one is not.
>
> If all the Canadian Open Data licences are deemed to be unacceptable what
> do we do about the data that has been imported?  This includes the CANVEC
> data.
>
> My interest is in the Ottawa Bus stops and I have been working with the
> City of Ottawa for some years to make them available off line on a tablet /
> phone.  Somewhere in the City of Ottawa's official web site is a link to
> this work.  My concern is what will tomorrow bring.  Based on the
> discussions in talk-ca and on the work done analyzing the Federal
> Government's Open Data licence before the Metro link address import my
> impression was we had accepted the Canadian version of the Open Data
> licence.  These Ottawa Bus stops are now based on OSM data and have been
> since the discussion on talk-ca last year.
>
> Are we seriously saying the data that Metrolink imported should now be
> removed?
>
> The uncertainty, the on / off on acceptence of the Open Data side of
> things does make life difficult.  Should we be using a different platform
> for Open Data?
>
> If I sidetrack to the Ottawa import process essentially the building
> outlines are brought into a JOSM layer then using the Bing image layer to
> confirm they are brought into OSM manually.  My understanding is any
> building outlines that clash with an existing building in OSM daily dump
> have been removed from the import file.  Any added in the previous 24 hours
> can be handled by the manual process.  This is quite different to an
> earlier import.
>
> Thoughts and clarification please.
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 25 Jan 2017 2:43 pm, "Alan Richards"  wrote:
>
>> Most BC cities seem to be using a version of the OGL-BC now as well. This
>> is similar to the OGL-CA with references to BC privacy and FOI laws,
>> similar to the Ontario changes mentioned earlier.
>>
>> This business of having to get explicit permission for each dataset from
>> each government entity is a bit ridiculous when the intent of this license
>> in the first place was to avoid this.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Blake Girardot 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on
>>> top of
>>> > the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
>>> incompatible.
>>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> The above sounds like an interpretation of the answer, not the actual
>>> answer itself.
>>>
>>> Could you share the actual inquiry and response so we can all learn
>>> from it and understand how it requires additional obligations?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> blake
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Blake Girardot
>>> HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot
>>> skype: jblakegirardot
>>> Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> 

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

[James]

It is, the thing they changed was federal references to municipal ones.
Which is why i'm confused the license is "not compatible"

On Jan 21, 2017 6:42 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> >I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll
> have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them
> all the time.
>
> My understanding is the City of Ottawa one is based on the Federal
> Government one.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 21 January 2017 at 18:11, Paul Norman  wrote:
>
>> On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote:
>>
>>> Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from the
>>> same source and the same licence.  I think I might have included one pitch
>>> sport soccer.  The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was I must confess
>>> taken from their open data source.
>>>
>>
>> I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll
>> have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them
>> all the time.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

Well then that would mean we couldnt use any goverment licensed data as it
would be an "interpretation" of a license and not made law in a house of
commons/other law making place, which is unreasonable to expect. If lawyers
are consulted to judge compatibility with the license they chose to release
their data under what is the issue here?

On Jan 21, 2017 7:38 PM, "Paul Norman"  wrote:

> On 1/21/2017 4:34 PM, john whelan wrote:
>
>> What you have is an interpretation of the Federal Government license.
>> From my background in the civil service my understanding is for a statement
>> it would have to be over a minister's signature or by act of parliament.
>> No one else has the authority unless it is delegated.
>>
>
> If that's true and we can't rely on a statement from a government employee
> to interpret their license, then we can no longer use OGL-CA data.
>
> ___
> 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

Thats old. Check
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan#Permission


On Jan 20, 2017 5:45 PM, "Paul Norman"  wrote:

> On 1/20/2017 12:40 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
>
> Big news, the City of Ottawa has released the footprint of over 325,000
> buildings on their open data portal in support to the project with
> Statistics Canada and the OSM community.
>
>
>
> We are very grateful for the amazing collaboration with the City of Ottawa
> on this pilot project and are very pleased for this amazing contribution.
>
>
>
> Link:
>
> http://data.ottawa.ca/en/dataset/urban-buildings
>
>
> Is there a statement anywhere from Ottawa saying that their license is
> compatible with the ODbL? All I can find is https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Permission which seems to be about
> their previous license.
>
> ___
> 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

Old link to an old wiki. Please see:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan#Permission

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 1/20/2017 12:40 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
>
> Big news, the City of Ottawa has released the footprint of over 325,000
> buildings on their open data portal in support to the project with
> Statistics Canada and the OSM community.
>
>
>
> We are very grateful for the amazing collaboration with the City of Ottawa
> on this pilot project and are very pleased for this amazing contribution.
>
>
>
> Link:
>
> http://data.ottawa.ca/en/dataset/urban-buildings
>
>
> Is there a statement anywhere from Ottawa saying that their license is
> compatible with the ODbL? All I can find is https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Permission which seems to be about
> their previous license.
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

Is OGL-CA not compatible with osm?

On Jan 20, 2017 8:17 PM, "Paul Norman" <penor...@mac.com> wrote:

> On 1/20/2017 3:22 PM, James wrote:
>
> Old link to an old wiki. Please see:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:
> Ottawa/Import/Plan#Permission
>
> That says Ottawa gave some data to Stats Canada in 2016, not that their
> data can be reused under the ODbL. I've sent an email to them asking for
> permission. We need this because we're getting the data directly from them.
>
> ___
> 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

I got Bjenk from Stats Can to get a statement from the city of Ottawa
Monday to explicitly use the data in OSM. Licensing is compatible in terms
of OGL-CA and ODBL, but if a statement allows the import to proceed we will
get it even though is seems bureaucratic more than a legal issue

Have a nice weekend

On Jan 20, 2017 9:56 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Essentially OSM is not well set up to handle these sort of issues.
> Normally interpretations are base on custom and practice.
>
> The wording is slightly different between the two licences.  OSM decision
> making for local matters is normally left to local mappers.
>
> So the decision to allow the import is an Ottawa mapper decision but
> whether the licenses are compatible is not.
>
> There is and has been minor imports of Open Data in Ottawa for some time.
> The bus stops for example.  So custom and practice say if the bus stop
> import was permitted then data from the same source under the same licence
> should also be permitted.
>
> It's a little like dealing with the native people of Canada.  There are
> 500,000 of them with 500,000 different opinions.  Trying to reach an
> agreement is very difficult.
>
> Realistically imports happen in OSM everyday.  They aren't always
> announced in talk-ca first.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 20 Jan 2017 9:01 pm, "James" <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is OGL-CA not compatible with osm?
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2017 8:17 PM, "Paul Norman" <penor...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/20/2017 3:22 PM, James wrote:
>>>
>>> Old link to an old wiki. Please see:
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Im
>>> port/Plan#Permission
>>>
>>> That says Ottawa gave some data to Stats Canada in 2016, not that their
>>> data can be reused under the ODbL. I've sent an email to them asking for
>>> permission. We need this because we're getting the data directly from them.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

They might be updating the website, but the license is OGL-CA based:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan#Licence

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> The license link is broken, is it this one? http://ottawa.ca/en/city-
> hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0
>
> Martijn van Exel
>
> On Jan 20, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Big news, the City of Ottawa has released the footprint of over 325,000
> buildings on their open data portal in support to the project with
> Statistics Canada and the OSM community.
>
> We are very grateful for the amazing collaboration with the City of Ottawa
> on this pilot project and are very pleased for this amazing contribution.
>
> Link:
> http://data.ottawa.ca/en/dataset/urban-buildings
>
>
>
> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>
> Unit head | Chef de sous-section
> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab d’exploration et
> intégration de données (LEID)
> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les
> entreprises
> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
> (343) 998-3004
>
> ___
> 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
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

No we are not. The data license of Ottawa is compatible with ODBL, website
link is borked, that is all.

On Jan 20, 2017 4:50 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> We aren't talking about removing all the bus stops in Ottawa again are we?
>
> I thought we'd been through the licensing issues before and for those of
> us without cars knowing the bus stop number is extremely useful.
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 20 January 2017 at 16:06, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
>> The license link is broken, is it this one? http://ottawa.ca/en/city-
>> hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0
>>
>> Martijn van Exel
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
>> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Big news, the City of Ottawa has released the footprint of over 325,000
>> buildings on their open data portal in support to the project with
>> Statistics Canada and the OSM community.
>>
>> We are very grateful for the amazing collaboration with the City of
>> Ottawa on this pilot project and are very pleased for this amazing
>> contribution.
>>
>> Link:
>> http://data.ottawa.ca/en/dataset/urban-buildings
>>
>>
>>
>> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>>
>> Unit head | Chef de sous-section
>> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab d’exploration et
>> intégration de données (LEID)
>> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur
>> les entreprises
>> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
>> (343) 998-3004
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

Found license link that works here:
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0


On Jan 20, 2017 4:55 PM, "James" <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No we are not. The data license of Ottawa is compatible with ODBL, website
> link is borked, that is all.
>
> On Jan 20, 2017 4:50 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We aren't talking about removing all the bus stops in Ottawa again are we?
>>
>> I thought we'd been through the licensing issues before and for those of
>> us without cars knowing the bus stop number is extremely useful.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 20 January 2017 at 16:06, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The license link is broken, is it this one? http://ottawa.ca/en/city-
>>> hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0
>>>
>>> Martijn van Exel
>>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
>>> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> Big news, the City of Ottawa has released the footprint of over 325,000
>>> buildings on their open data portal in support to the project with
>>> Statistics Canada and the OSM community.
>>>
>>> We are very grateful for the amazing collaboration with the City of
>>> Ottawa on this pilot project and are very pleased for this amazing
>>> contribution.
>>>
>>> Link:
>>> http://data.ottawa.ca/en/dataset/urban-buildings
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>>>
>>> Unit head | Chef de sous-section
>>> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab d’exploration et
>>> intégration de données (LEID)
>>> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur
>>> les entreprises
>>> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
>>> (343) 998-3004
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[James]

Yet it's the same as the Vancouver one that has been approved, and had data
imported

On Jan 25, 2017 8:30 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:

> 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
> treated with extreme caution. From the Legal FAQ:
>
> “XYZ Organisation has data for free download under licence N. Can I use
> it in OSM?
>
> Approach the data owners, explain OSM, and seek written permission to
> licence their data under our licence and contributor terms.
>
> Unless the data is genuinely offered without any restrictions on use at
> all (i.e. public domain), please contact the Licensing Working Group for
> advice. Do not rely on your own legal interpretation of the licence. OSM
> is all about creating a freely and easily redistributable data set.
> Anything which taints the dataset or exposes OSM to possible legal
> action interferes with that objective.
>
> Even if you only want to use a minor part, or compare the sources, you
> should still seek approval in writing. The legal principles involved are
> not well developed, and the OSM community wants to develop a free and
> untainted dataset and not test any of the legal issues involved here.
>
> In short: be ultra-cautious”
>
>  Organisation_has_data_for_free_download_under_licence_N.
> _Can_I_use_it_in_OSM.3F>
>
> > With that said, It has not yet been clearly explained what are the
> > issues nor the sources raising concerns. Many have asked for
> > clarifications and these have not been presented.
>
> These responses take time. We're all volunteers who do this for fun.
> I've (just) requested clarification from the OSMF License Working group.
> I don't know if anyone had before. To OSM, the Ottawa licence is
> different from the Federal OGL, so it needs looked at.
>
>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

Paul your answer is not clear. what is it that the license(ODL i'm
guessing?) would impose on top of ODBL?

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> So since it is the same license as the Feds which you have a letter of
> interpretation saying its fine with the exception of the Ontario Privacy
> laws does that mean the fed license is to be written off as well?
>
> Pity as I like my bus stops and CANVEC highways.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 24 January 2017 at 20:38, Paul Norman  wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/2017 3:11 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>>
>> On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote:
>>
>> Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from the
>> same source and the same licence.  I think I might have included one pitch
>> sport soccer.  The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was I must confess
>> taken from their open data source.
>>
>>
>> I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll
>> have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them
>> all the time.
>>
>>
>> The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top
>> of the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
>> incompatible.
>>
>> I have gotten back to them with some additional questions which might
>> offer a way forwards and clarify the problems. If I can't get anywhere
>> we'll have to decide what to do, but it will probably mean we can write off
>> the City of Ottawa as a potential data source.
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

The city of Ottawa has the same license as the city of Vancouver:
http://vancouver.ca/your-government/open-data-catalogue.aspx#tab19099

Which seemed to have been deemed compatible, must we revert all vancouver
imports as well?

You have even stated that OGL-CA is compatible with ODBL in this mail
archive:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2013-December/007685.html

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:58 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Paul your answer is not clear. what is it that the license(ODL i'm
> guessing?) would impose on top of ODBL?
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> So since it is the same license as the Feds which you have a letter of
>> interpretation saying its fine with the exception of the Ontario Privacy
>> laws does that mean the fed license is to be written off as well?
>>
>> Pity as I like my bus stops and CANVEC highways.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 24 January 2017 at 20:38, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/21/2017 3:11 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote:
>>>
>>> Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from the
>>> same source and the same licence.  I think I might have included one pitch
>>> sport soccer.  The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was I must confess
>>> taken from their open data source.
>>>
>>>
>>> I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll
>>> have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them
>>> all the time.
>>>
>>>
>>> The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top
>>> of the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
>>> incompatible.
>>>
>>> I have gotten back to them with some additional questions which might
>>> offer a way forwards and clarify the problems. If I can't get anywhere
>>> we'll have to decide what to do, but it will probably mean we can write off
>>> the City of Ottawa as a potential data source.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Tagging forest as a park?

[James]

I've noticed something going on in the map:
http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/1944638

Denis001 has added leisure=park to a Canvec forest and a Lake's name. I'm
pretty sure that he ment to add it to the lake itself and not the forest
relation. Just wondering what you think? Should I remove leisure=park and
the name tag?
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging forest as a park?

[James]

Salut Pierre, J'ai vu le lac sur un node de Canvec que je peux appliquer
aux outline:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1570780237#map=17/48.63602/-70.54527=D
C'est ce qui ma fait penser qu'il l'a appliqué à la forêt et non le lac

2017-02-22 15:39 GMT-05:00 Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr>:

> Bonjour James
>
> Le nom de lac devrait etre appliqué au lac et nom a ce multipolygone
> décrivant les forets. Et je ne crois pas qu'il y aie un parc a cet endroit.
> Le Parc des monts Valin est un peu plus loin.
>
> Pour référence sur les noms de lacs, voir la toponymie du Québec
> http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/ToposWeb/Fiche.aspx?no_seq=82668
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> --
> *De :* James <james2...@gmail.com>
> *À :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> *Envoyé le :* mercredi 22 février 2017 15h05
> *Objet :* [Talk-ca] Tagging forest as a park?
>
> I've noticed something going on in the map:
> http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/1944638
>
> Denis001 has added leisure=park to a Canvec forest and a Lake's name. I'm
> pretty sure that he ment to add it to the lake itself and not the forest
> relation. Just wondering what you think? Should I remove leisure=park and
> the name tag?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging forest as a park?

[James]

seeing as it was back in 2015, PoGo didn't exist back then, I think it was
just a mistake.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us>
wrote:

> It's possible Denis001 edit is an effort to "game" Pokemon. I would
> recommend fixing the edit and send them a nicely worded welcome message
> with help in how to edit. I provide new users with a link to this blog on
> editing for Pokemon, https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2016/12/30/
> tips-pokemon-go/
>
> Clifford
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:05 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've noticed something going on in the map:
>> http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/1944638
>>
>> Denis001 has added leisure=park to a Canvec forest and a Lake's name. I'm
>> pretty sure that he ment to add it to the lake itself and not the forest
>> relation. Just wondering what you think? Should I remove leisure=park and
>> the name tag?
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] destination:street

[James]

Destination tags were added by mapbox for highways in Canada and the US:


https://www.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/adding-exit-and-destination-signs/

On Jan 19, 2017 8:02 PM, "Martijn van Exel"  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Telenav mapping team noticed quite a few destination:street tags on
> (mostly) motorway_link off-ramps in Canada. This is an undocumented sub-tag
> of the destination tag so I am curious how it is being used and if there is
> some sort of consensus that is documented somewhere else than the OSM wiki.
>
> An Overpass query surfaced 1883 cases, http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ln2
>
> Looking at a random one, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34154734 /
> http://openstreetcam.org/details/10767/4194 — I think in the US we would
> just map this as destination=Carman Road;Iriquois and destination:ref=1
>
> So my question is whether this is some relic of a past practice, or is
> this actively used and encouraged mapping practice and if so, where should
> it be documented? (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/
> Destination_details seems to be a good candidate.)
>
> We’re happy to help improve these tags based on OSC / Mapillary data but I
> wanted to make sure first that this is the way you all want to go.
>
> Happy mapping,
>
> Martijn van Exel
>
>
> ___
> 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] OSM - Gatineau largebuilding

[James]

Would have to pass through STATS can to get it as gatineau doesn't have the
building outlines available(or else I would have imported them) to the
public on their data portal

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:15 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> Stats Canada are arranging to make the Ottawa building dataset available
> on the Federal Government's open data web site to avoid any licencing
> issues.  My understanding is the Gatineau data set will be made available
> in a similar manner.
>
> Jamie is more likely to be conversant with the availability and current
> licencing of the Gatineau Open Data than I am.
>
> Bjenk is currently on vacation but I expect the datasets to be available
> before mid September.  In the same timeframe the City of Ottawa is expected
> to formally adopt the same licence as the Federal Government's Open data
> web site.  The City of Ottawa's Open Data address data is likely to be made
> available in the same manner and I seem to recollect that  Bjenk's thoughts
> are that even data such as the City of Ottawa's GTFS file could be made
> available in the same manner.
>
> For the moment I would recommend holding off until the formal
> announcement.  It might not seem like it but things are moving quite
> quickly in the background and quite a lot thought and people are involved
> in making it all work smoothly even though nothing appears to be happening
> at the moment.
>
> I think part of the plan is to set up a tile system so the building data
> can be imported very carefully a tile at a time in an organised fashion.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 23 Aug 2016 12:07 pm, "Niko sy"  wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> I was wondering if someone had a download link to the City of Gatineau's
>> official largebuilding footprint equivalent like the City of Ottawa is
>> using for the STC OSM initiative?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Zachary
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

Yeah forests are not an easy task to handle, I've been trying to tackle
this from time to time in rural areas as to no put a forest in the city,
but it's a long process as you need to validate a lot of things before you
can upload a small portion of land.

I've tackled a few today:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41689490
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41689128
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41688785

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Gordon Dewis  wrote:

> Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from Canvec in
> the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal with
> compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in the tools I
> was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since.
>
>   --Gordon (Keeper of Maps)
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Alan Richards 
> wrote:
>
>> I believe these are the result of importing Canvec landuse data for some
>> areas and not for others. Because the data is in square chunks, you end up
>> with these unnatural looking squares on the map. Really it's just a case of
>> the other areas don't have detail yet.
>>
>> Across the border it looks like the US just has parks and national
>> forests, etc. mapped, and not the general natural=forest that you see
>> across Canada.
>>
>> Alan (alarobric)
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Antoine Beaupré > > wrote:
>>
>>> hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)
>>>
>>> one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
>>> Canada is this ugly forest display:
>>>
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916
>>>
>>> Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
>>> Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
>>> that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
>>> you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.
>>>
>>> I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
>>> time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
>>> there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.
>>>
>>> I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
>>> about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).
>>>
>>> Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
>>> anyways?
>>>
>>> In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
>>> *all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
>>> Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..
>>>
>>> Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).
>>>
>>> A.
>>>
>>> --
>>> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
>>> humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
>>> - John Perry Barlow, 1996
>>> A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Qualiuty of OSM data

[James]

I've read it in the past, I do agree cavec is not 100% accurate, but  in
areas with absolutely nothing, it is better than a blank map: which is
useless.

On Aug 31, 2016 6:02 PM, "dega"  wrote:

Hi everybody!
On 2016-08-31 Stewart C. Russell wrote:
> A paper published in the last couple of years (by Anita Graser, maybe?)
> showed that CanVec imports were the largest source of spurious precision
> in the entire OSM database.

If somebody has a link to that document, I would like to get it.

Thanks!

dega

___
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] What's up with those forests in Canada section

[James]

+1 a lot more detailed than what I wrote

On Aug 31, 2016 10:26 PM, "Sam Dyck" <samueld...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's my suggestion for a sort of FAQ (in wiki markup), incorporating
> what James already wrote. I'm posting it here for comment because I have a
> tendency to get unhelpfully passive aggressive.
>
> The squared off sections of forest in Canada are the result of unfinished
> CanVec data import. CanVec tiles are broken up into squares called the NTS
> grid to better manage the data. If you see a forest that's squared off with
> a empty section beside it, it's most likely that that grid has not been
> imported yet.
>
> ''What is Canvec?''
>
> [[Canvec]] is a digital product produced by the federal government that is
> a combination of various federal geodata databases into 1:5 tiles.
> These tiles were converted by Natural Resources Canada into OSM XML and put
> on a government FTP server for importation into OSM. After several years of
> licensing discussion.
>
> ''Some of the data in a Canvec import changeset has something weird going
> on (forests overlapping in lakes, islands where there don't appear to
> islands, wetlands where there sohuld be lakes). Why are you importing this
> garbage?''
>
> Canvec is generally accurate, it was collected from high quality satellite
> imagery collected for the federal government, and has generally withstood
> our attempts to ground truth it. However there are errors and apparent
> errors. Some of these can be explained by natural changes: lakeshores shift
> with the years and seasons, lakes become wetlands, forests burn or are cut
> down and regrow.
>
> The simple reason we have to do this import is because Canada is enormous
> and has very few people, consequently there are large areas that have a
> very light human presence. For example the territory of Nunavut, the
> largest subnational division in Canada, is larger than of France, Ukraine,
> Sweden and the United Kingdom combined and has less than 40,000 people.
> Most people in Canada live in a handful of cities a short distance from the
> US border. There is a lot of blank area to fill, and so we make an effort
> to import quality data, but there is a lot of area to cover, so after long
> discussions we arrived at the consensus that importing Canvec data was the
> best solution, providing we followed a set of practices.
>
> ''Don't you have local mappers in these communities who could check the
> data?''
>
> Most likely no. See the note about population density above. Also much of
> non-urban Canada, especially Northern communities, have to rely on
> satellite internet, which is both extremely expensive and has both
> effective download speeds measured in kbps and small data caps of 5 or 10
> GB.
>
> ''I see some issues with Canvec data, what should I do?''
>
> If you think the data itself is in error, try and check to see if it could
> not possibly be an accurate reflection of what might be at some point.
> Canvec importers have been criticized for importing data, that while it
> looks suspicious, accurately reflects what is on the ground. If it's an
> obvious error that's easy to fix, go ahead and correct it. If there's
> something bigger, talk to the mapper or post on the talk-ca mailing list.
>
> ''I see something wrong with the actual structure of the data (overly
> complex ways, duplicate ways).''
>
> These should have been fixed in the import, but sometimes things get
> missed. Please go ahead and fix them.
>
> ''I found a Canvec import that didn't comply with the import policy!''
>
> Please don't revert it, despite the appearance of wholesale importing, a
> proper Canvec import takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the
> importer. Canvec imports began before the current import policy, and so
> some importers continued what they had already been doing unaware of the
> policy. Hopefully everyone is in compliance now, but if you do see
> importing incorrectly please assume good faith.
>
> ___
> 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] Annexation/amalgamation of towns/villages in Canada

[James]

You can use the disused tag

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:

If you really dont want to delete it

On Sep 2, 2016 12:03 PM, "yegbin"  wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> First post from a new contributor so initially want to say I am enjoying
> being a part of this OSM Canadian community.
>
> I would like some local opinions on Beverly.
>
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/51970574
>
> The former town of Beverly was amalgamated into Edmonton in 1961 (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly,_Alberta). The area is now a number
> of named neighbourhoods (none of which are named Beverly).
>
> As Beverly no longer exists, is it best practice to delete this node or is
> there a better way to tag it?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> yegbin
> ___
> 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] CanVec Reverts

[James]

>From what Rps333 told me in person he had worked many hours on that
changeset and was frustrated when someone reverted before fixes could be
applied. Could you revert the revert?

On Sep 1, 2016 4:09 PM, "Paul Norman"  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Multiple people have referred this issue and changeset 39517002 to the
> OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group about this issue. The Data
> Working Group has responsibility for the resolution of disputes beyond
> the normal means of the community, as well as some responsibilities
> concerning imports. I am replying here rather than the changeset as it
> should reach everyone involved.
>
> CanVec Quality
> ==
>
> The CanVec import is one that was started long ago so parts of the
> documentation are lacking and some aspects are unclear.[1] CanVec, like
> any other import, has certain hard requirements, including the use of a
> dedicated user account.
>
> In particular it is expected that imported CanVec data is
>
> - Integrated with existing data, particularly at NTS/CanVec tile edges
>
> - Valid
>
> - Internally consistent with both the newly imported CanVec and existing
>   OSM data, particularly to avoid overlapping landuse like forest and
>   water, forest and residential, or wetlands in what is obviously a
>   residential subdivision.
>
> - Uploaded in small enough parts that the changesets make sense. This
>   means never uploading more than 50k objects at once, and typically
>   fewer than 10k.
>
> - Not duplicating existing OSM data. Evaluating what data is better
>   generally requires experience with both CanVec and OSM data in the
>   *region being mapped*
>
> It is not required that CanVec data is compared an external source like
> Bing imagery, but this is helpful, particularly when resolving problems.
>
> We encourage the Canadian community to develop better documentation for
> people importing CanVec to achieve this and to remove outdated
> documentation.[2]
>
> Reverting
> =
>
> Advance permission is not required for reverts, nor for normal mapping
> activities. At the same time, users are expected to be responsible,
> particularly when using tools for reverting which allow large-scale
> changes where other users may disagree with them.
>
> Where there are problems with an import reverting is an option, but
> just one of many, and often not the appropriate first action. Unless
> there are legal problems[3] or fatal problems with the import it is
> preferable if the original importer can fix the problems in a timely
> manner. There was every indication this was going to happen in this case.
>
> The revert of 39517002 was inappropriate and counter-productive. New
> actions like this revert may lead to further Data Working Group
> involvement and potentially blocks. If the Canadian community needs help
> reverting 41749133 and 41756737, the Data Working Group can revert those
> changesets.
>
> While not going into depth on the changeset discussion at this time, I
> want to remind everyone involved that OpenStreetMap is a crowd-sourcing
> project, which inherently involves working with other people. This
> requires good communication, which was absent here.
>
> Paul Norman
>
> For the OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group
>
> [1]: Except for the CanVec license, which is ODbL and possibly CC BY-SA
>
> [2]: Much of the CanVec documentation is outdated, which makes it
>  difficult to know what is relevant. A good start would be removing
>  outdated documentation.
>
> [3]: Please refer cases of large-scale infringement to
> d...@osmfoundation.org
>  so we can "redact" the content to remove it from publicly viewable
>  history.
>
>
> ___
> 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] CanVec Reverts

[James]

See that's where I have an issue with your revert logic, if errors are
mostly corrected and say theres only 1 or 2 warnings, you want to revert
the whole thing which is very bad for: 1. The community and 2. The
database. Let me explain: there are many hours that go into merging down
CanVec ways and you want to undo all that work. Why is it bad for the
database? It makes it bigger everytine you do stuff like that, an ID has to
be allocated to every node, way and relation and by you "deleting"
everything, they remain in the database as history which is bad as the full
history planet file is already retardedly big(200+GB) and then when someone
redoes the work you undid, new IDs are allocated which doubles the data
size just for you being anal about perfection. Instead of reverting it for
1-2 warnings FIX IT! You dont have nice bing satelite imagery to
reference(which is the case with most of northern Canada)? Too bad you want
to be anal. Also this is a reminder that bing imagery can be 1. Really
really really stale(10-15 years old as taking high res photos of trees
doesnt return on investment) and 2. 1-20m offset. Instead of reverting the
data that isnt perfect, why not spend your time correcting it instead of
work being done: Canada isn't Germany.

Ich wünsche einen guten Tag!

On Sep 1, 2016 1:40 AM, "Michael Reichert"  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi,
>
> unfortunately posting via Gmane does not seem to work (the website is
> down but NNTP still works), that's why I have to start a new thread. :-(
>
> Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:41:21 -0500 schrieb Sam Dyck:
> > After reading through the changeset discussion, I discovered that
> > one of my imports in Northern Manitoba made Worst of OSM.
> > (http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-
> > openstreetmap-isnt-it-strange-how-the). As someone who spends a
> > some time amount of time in some of relatively unpopulated areas of
> > Canada and makes an effort to check the quality of Canvec data
> > (which is usually pretty good), I do agree that it is impossible to
> > do everything to the same level of quality that we would provide in
> > Toronto or Timmins or even small prairie towns.
>
> First of all, it is ok that an import takes a few years and therefore
> creates ugly green rectancles on the map. If an import is "unavoidable"
> :-), a manual import is the best thing that can be happen. But if
> someone uploads a changeset without a manual review beforehand, he
> counteracts the aim of a manual import: addind good data to
> OpenStreetMap. That's what I am mainly fighting against. If a users
> uploads much more than 100 objects per minute [1], you can be sure that
> he has not done any manual review. A manual review by myself confirmed
> this these. I am fighting against such changesets/users.
>
> A good imports must be reviewed *before* it is being uploaded. The
> review contains:
> - - Run JOSM validator, fix all warnings and errors. This includes all
> warnings regarding validity of areas. (you can argue if all warnings
> about "deprecated" tagging have to be fixed)
> - - Compare the data with available imagery. Is the forest really a forest
> or is another tag more appropiate? Right-click on a Bing tile at JOSM
> and have a look how old/recent the imagery is.
> - - Check if CanVec data fits to itself.
> http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-openstreetmap-isnt-
> it-strange-how-the
> - - Check if there has been any other data before. If yes, adapt the
> either the CanVec data or the old data.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Import-Fails-Powerlines-Not-Ins
> ide-Cutting.png
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439631732
> - - Ways should not overlap with other ways if it is not necessary. The
> outer ring of a lake should also be inner member of the forest
> multipolygon. Maybe the program which created the OSM files should be
> imprved?
> - - Keep the history.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history
>
> If a tile has been imported without being checked manually and no
> post-upload fixes have been done (i.e. upload without any checks), I
> will not shrink from reverting it. If a tile has been uploaded to OSM
> without a review and if it has not been fixed within a month, it is
> worthless and can easily be reimported at a later time if someone has
> the time to check and fix it.
>
> For the future, I will abstain from reverting changesets which have been
> imported before September 1, 2016 and whose users are currently doing
> the fixes that should already have been done. But if I come across an
> imported tile of low quality which has not been touched for a few weeks
> and is full of errors, it is just a question of time until it is reverte
> d.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> [1] I had a look on a few of my changesets which added a large number of
> buildings to OSM. The fastest changeset contained about 60 objects per
> minute and was full 

Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec Reverts

[James]

I agree that forest that are way too costly in time should be removed, but
they should also be replaced with something(better) not just mass removed,
oh well we'll get to it later kind of thing

On Sep 1, 2016 8:05 PM, "Sam Dyck"  wrote:

>  I took a break to make supper, so I'm going to have to respond
> collectively.
>
> - Sammuell and sammuell_imports are my accounts. Both the forest and the
> lake are from Canvec data imported together as in the same tile. I Imported
> the whole thing (I would never import over existing data that carelessly),
> and take responsibility for that.
>
> - As my subsequent email showed, I missed the part about water/forest
> overlaps in Paul's email. Both and other people on this list have explained
> our feelings about this, but I will accept DWGs decision.
>
> - Per Michael's suggestion: This is constructive, but I do not feel that
> it is feasible because of the tiled structure of Canvec. To try and shift
> the forest layer over would make the problem worse.
>
> - Removal of the forest layer may be the best solution here. However there
> are many places in where the data matches up perfectly. Speaking only of
> areas where I am the primary importer, most of the forests in Ontario west
> of Thunder Bay would have to go, which is unfortunate because some have
> been manually corrected, though not enough to save them. Much (but
> certainly not all) of the forests in Manitoba could be saved with minimal
> effort.
>
> - If/when this is done we could look at ways to restore these forests. In
> areas that are mostly forest it shouldn't be too difficult to fill them
> using large multipolygons.
>
> Sam
>
> ___
> 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] CanVec Reverts

[James]

What tells you he didnt prepare batches outside the upload time(offline)?
Your logic is skewed

On Sep 1, 2016 8:39 AM, "Michael Reichert"  wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> Am 2016-09-01 um 12:26 schrieb Begin Daniel:
> > Furthermore, I hope you will not use you 100 objects per minute to
> decide whether or not you will delete a changeset. I think this threshold
> is value doesn't' apply (see below)
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > About the100 objects threshold.
> > From my experience, if I load a Canvec tile in JOSM, make all the
> necessary corrections and then import the result to OSM, I throw up to 25K
> objects to the database within five minutes.  As far as I know, the
> timestamps attached to the changeset and to the objects is generated by the
> OSM database when receiving the data. The five minutes it takes to upload
> the data to the database (5K objects per minute) do not reflect the time I
> spent editing the data prior to the upload.
>
> That's the base of my calculation I did with Rps333's changesets:
>
> changeset   start   end object count
> 
> 3951757119:30:5319:32:564311
> 3951768619:35:3019:41:1211724
> 3951794419:45:1519:47:274963
> 3951814719:53:2520:04:5519286
>
> As you see, he took less than three minutes minutes after uploading
> 39517571 to prepare 39517686. You cannot check such an amount of data
> very well within that time.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> ausgenommen)
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>
>
> ___
> 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] broken forests in eastern Canada

[James]

I'm not sure if anyone from the DWG will do anything, but I agree he should
be prevented from making changes to Canada. He thinks he knows better than
the local mappers

On Sep 1, 2016 8:49 AM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> It would appear that Michael has no appreciation of how we the local
> community work or of how large Canada is nor does he appear to be able to
> communicate with us and understand our concerns.
>
> I suggest we formally request that he is prevented from making any changes
> within Canada and his reversals be reverted.
>
> The Canvec data was imported with the knowledge and support of the local
> mappers and I think that's all that matters.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 1 September 2016 at 08:39, Michael Reichert  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 01.09.2016 um 01:21 schrieb dega:
>> > On Aug 31, Daniel Bégin wrote:
>> >> On the same topic, it has been suggested to split wooded areas in
>> smaller
>> >> chunks by using features on the ground as outer limits (mostly roads,
>> >> streams, rivers) and get rid of arbitrary rectangles from Canvec.
>> >> Is it something we are aiming at?
>> >
>> > The grid is an important source of problems. Here are some examples:
>> > 1) If a lake is on the grid, it will be split in 2 parts. Each part
>> will have
>> > a name tag and and 2 identical names will be displayed on the map, one
>> on each
>> > part. This problem exist in thousands of lakes. I even saw a lake with a
>> > triplicated name.
>> > Merging the parts would require modifying 2 or more relations and many
>> > importers don't do it (even if they use JOSM) because of the
>> complexity. Some
>> > have used a quick fix where they remove names from the parts and put it
>> in a
>> > POI. It looks fine but that's bad for database integrity.
>>
>> If someone does not merge two lakes because it is too "complex", he
>> should evaluate if he is the right person to import such data. If an
>> import contains much multipolygon relations, the people how import the
>> data should know how they work, what can be done wrong, how to edit and
>> how to fix them. :-/
>>
>> > 2) A addr:interp way may be split in 2 parts. 2 consequences:
>> > - the interpolation way become useless because it's now 2 different
>> objects.
>> > - the mid-point becomes 2 superposed nodes. Useless duplication.
>> >
>> > 3) A grid tile has a fixed size. It may be appropriate for unpopulated
>> areas
>> > but it is too large for urban areas where editors work at a high zoom
>> level
>> > (17 and up). It's easy to damage a relation without knowing it.
>> >
>> > But there are other problems (not related to the grid):
>> > 4) the relations seem to be designed to be stand-alone. Thus the
>> relation
>> > borders don't share a way. They use 2 superposed ways. Useless
>> duplication.
>> > It's very confusing and we frequently alter the wrong way.
>> >
>> > 5) lakes are represented by 2 superposed identical objects, one for the
>> hole
>> > and one for the lake. If the hole happen to be on top, the name will
>> not be
>> > displayed. It's an unjustifiable complexity for the casual user.
>> > I've also seen triplicated contour (one for the lake, on for the inner
>> role
>> > and one for the outer role)
>> >
>> > Yes, all these quirks can be fixed manually but it's time-consuming and
>> error-
>> > prone.
>>
>> What about reverting the tiles which have all these issues and seem to
>> be uploaded with too few checks beforehand, run a better version of the
>> preprocessor on the CanVec raw data and reimport them again? (That
>> causes a loss of OSM history but an import changeset is not as much
>> valueable than a manual changeset)
>>
>> > Ideally, the contour of a forest must not split any object and it's not
>> > possible with a grid.
>> > The sole advantage of a grid IMHO is to simplify the CanVec exports.
>>
>> What about replacing the grid by less artificial borders, e.g. roads,
>> rivers, powerlines etc. If an area has too few of theses objects,
>> artifical borders could be automatically drawn which are optimized to
>> cut as few objects as possible into two parts.
>>
>> > Some years ago I would have proposed that someone write a guide "How to
>> fix a
>> > CanVec import". But now I would rather propose that someone write a
>> "How to
>> > pre-process a CanVec export before importing it into OSM".
>>
>> +1
>>
>> All ongoing changesets which import CanVec data should either use an
>> improved version of the preprocessor or should undergo the manual
>> quality checks I described in my other emails and the changeset comments.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> --
>> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
>> ausgenommen)
>> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
> 

Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[James]

because it is a tangible item in the real world, it should be mapped?
OpenStreetMap is not just about roads and navigation, it's an Open GIS
representation of the world around us. People may be using that
information, even if you are not. While we are at it why not just nuke
lakes and rivers as they serve no purpose right?

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Paul Ramsey 
wrote:

> I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to
> the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some
> of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons /
> boundary overlaps).
>
> In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly
> wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which
> doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the
> present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem).
>
> Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where
> does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees?
> Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of
> land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at
> high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why
> don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)?
>
> P
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon  wrote:
>
>>
>> On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to
>> reduce the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new
>> mappers like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make
>> incremental improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM
>> community I was back in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote
>> region that hasn't had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited
>> areas I aimed to improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I
>> ended up giving up on them until I could get some more experience as I
>> absolutely did not understand what the hell was going on
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca