Re: [Talk-ca] Importing buildings in Canada

[Matthew Darwin]

Hello all,

Happy to see progress here.

My ongoing question is how to define that a "local" group has 
determined that an import can proceed.   And more specifically what is 
"local"? There are rural and remote parts of Canada which have in the 
order of zero active mappers or sense of a local community.  How do we 
consensus around imports there? Can we get agreement by (part-of) 
province/territory where there is not some other group that puts their 
hand up?  (maybe use admin level 5 boundaries, with holes for big cities)


I just want to make sure we don't stop at doing imports only for big 
cities. Buildings are important for the whole country.


On 2020-01-04 10:09 a.m., Nate Wessel wrote:


Hi Daniel,

Thank you for all the work you've put into this. I'd like to offer a 
couple suggestions and/or clarifications for your proposed import 
process, overview though it is.


First, I think it is very important that a tasking manager is set up 
on a city/by city basis only, and that only AFTER consensus is 
achieved that the import should proceed in that area. I would really 
like to avoid seeing the massive nationwide tasking that was set up 
the first time around. We should be making it hard for people to go 
rogue in regions where consensus for an import doesn't (yet) exist.


Related to this, though important enough to be a second point in 
it's own right, the tasking squares need to be small enough that a 
single user can manage them and inspect every single building in a 
task. The first round of import used task squares that were massive, 
and which couldn't be divided any further past a certain point. Even 
in rural areas, it is likely inappropriate to import areas larger 
than 1km^2. In central Toronto it would be (and was) idiotic. An 
import that doesn't take local scale into account shouldn't proceed. 
"Too big to load into JOSM" is about 100x too big to import in my 
opinion and is not a good enough benchmark for import batch sizing.


That is, each import needs to be local, and not just in a 
superficial sense.


I'll also add that the issue of conflation doesn't seem to have been 
worked out yet except to note that it is an issue. What will we do 
with the millions of buildings which will substantially 
overlap/duplicate existing buildings or imports? This needs to be 
worked out in detail before anything starts up again.


And what needs to be done about already existing low quality 
imports? It's good to acknowledge their existence, but what will be 
done about them? We've set up a task to clean up some of the mess in 
Toronto ( http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/168 ) but this is only 
the tip of the iceberg.


Again, I thank everyone for their time and effort on this - we can 
get this done if we go slow and do it right :-)


Best,

Nate Wessel, PhD
Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
NateWessel.com 

On 2020-01-03 3:40 p.m., Daniel @jfd553 wrote:


Bonjour groupe, mes excuses pour ce très long courriel !-)

I have reviewed everything that has been written on the ODB import 
(aka Canada Building Import) in Talk-ca and the wiki. I proposed 
changes to some wiki pages (via talk tabs) to ease the discussions 
about this import and the following. Now, in order to restart the 
import, here are some thoughts and a proposal on how to proceed to 
complete the task.


*1. Issues with the ODB Data Import*

Many concerns were raised about the import. One major concern was 
to obtain local communities’ buy-in in the Canadian context. 
Another concern was to improve the quality of the data prior the 
import. The following paragraphs intend to clear most of these 
concerns.


*1.1. Which data import project?*

According to the import guidelines (steps 3 & 4), a data import 
explicitly refers to a single data source (ODB in our case). 
Discussions about the availability and quality of Microsoft or ESRI 
data, while interesting, are not relevant as they should be dealt 
with as other import projects.


*1.2. What has been imported so far?*

According to what I found [1], the ODB import is completed for 21 
municipalities. These imports seem to have kept OSM content’s 
history, at least for the samples checked, but many problems were 
found. In some case, the imports brought swimming pools in OSM 
because they were included in the dataset (e.g. Moncton). In other 
cases, importing buildings with accurate locations (XY) over 
content mapped from less accurate imagery resulted in buildings 
that now overlap the street network (e.g. Squamish). It means that 
all these 21 imports need to be carefully re-examined and corrected 
as required.


For 12 other municipalities, the import is partial, either 
suspended as requested, or because previous imports had already 
provided most of the buildings (often from the same municipal 
provider). That said the import will definitely improve OSM 
accuracy and completeness if done properly.


*2. How should ODB Data be imported?*

I will 

Re: [Talk-ca] Saints in street names in Ontario

[Matthew Darwin]

   > who were showing up as top editors on
> http://osmstats.neis-one.org/?item=countries=Canada
> (they aren't necessarily representative of the community,
    but it's
> really the closest we can reasonably do given our current
tooling) [3]
> (no private message responses)
> - posted on OSM Canada Slack on 17 August
> https://osm-ca.slack.com/archives/CASP8UQNT/p1566053199044200
> (supportive responses from Matthew Darwin and Eric Geiler)
> - on August 27, sent a few more private messages to
editors in top 50
> on the stats page who had done Ontario edits [4] (no
private message
> responses)
>
> If you know of anyone else who might have a further
opinion on this,
> please forward as possible.
>
> Thanks,
> --Jarek
>
>

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

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] OSMOSE change: split on admin_level=5 boundaries in Québec

[Matthew Darwin]

Hello,

Just a note to advise that OSMOSE QA tool now has smaller areas to 
process in Québec rather than one area for the entire province. The 
tool is now using the admin_level=5 boundaries.  This follows the same 
change done for Ontario earlier this year. The reason to split up a 
province into multiple pieces is to allow faster processing time.


OSMOSE Canada QA is run from a server located in Gatineau, Québec.

QA status: 
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/control/update_matrix?remote=07e9 
(value represents the time since last update, is in days)


Issue Map: 
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=9=46.04=-74.32


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Inconsistencies in names for admin_level=5 boundaries in Québec

[Matthew Darwin]

Merci Pierre.

On 2019-09-02 12:13 p.m., Pierre Béland wrote:

Bonjour Matthew,

l'Office de toponomie du Québec (http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca) 
que nous utilisons comme référence pour les noms de lieux au Québec 
publie une page avec les noms de régions 
http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/normes-procedures/regles-ecriture/comment-ecrire-region-administrative-touristique.html




vs m-dash vs n-dash to separate names (compare 
Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine vs Abitibi-Témiscamingue)


Les noms sont écrits avec des tirets plutot que des espaces, et les 
noms composés de deux sous-régions sont séparés par double tiret.


- Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean qui regroupe Saguenay et Lac-Saint-Jean  
(j'ai corrigé selon commission de toponymie et enlevé espace blanc)

- Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine

Il y a une exception semble-t-il à la règle (ou oubli?) pour 
Abitibi–Témiscamingue,


vs bracketed numbers appended to the name (Laval, Montréal)
Noms + Numéro, lorsque ville et région portaient le même nom, j'ai 
ajouté le no. de région

- Laval (13)
- Montréal (06)

vs spaces between names (compare Abitibi-Témiscamingue vs Saguenay - 
Lac-Saint-Jean


on devrait enlever les espaces

Pierre


Le lundi 2 septembre 2019 11 h 24 min 08 s UTC−4, Matthew Darwin 
 a écrit :



Hello,

I was looking at the admin_level=5 boundaries in Québec, and I 
notice they appear to not be named consistently (list below).  
Possible issues:


  * m-dash vs n-dash to separate names (compare
Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine vs Abitibi-Témiscamingue)
  * spaces between names (compare Abitibi-Témiscamingue vs Saguenay
- Lac-Saint-Jean
  * bracketed numbers appended to the name (Laval, Montréal)

I am not an expert in how admin_level=5 boundaries in Québec, were 
setup, so I am just going to point out the difference here and leave 
it to someone else to adjust as necessary.


(The reason I'm looking at this is to consider to make Québec 
regsion into multiple parts for faster processing in OSMOSE, based 
on admin_level=5)



Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Bas-Saint-Laurent
Capitale-Nationale
Centre-du-Québec
Chaudière-Appalaches
Côte-Nord
Estrie
Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine
Lanaudière
Laurentides
Laval (13)
Mauricie
Montérégie
Montréal (06)
Nord-du-Québec
Nunavik
Outaouais
Saguenay - Lac-Saint-Jean

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Inconsistencies in names for admin_level=5 boundaries in Québec

[Matthew Darwin]

Hello,

I was looking at the admin_level=5 boundaries in Québec, and I notice 
they appear to not be named consistently (list below). Possible issues:


 * m-dash vs n-dash to separate names (compare
   Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine vs Abitibi-Témiscamingue)
 * spaces between names (compare Abitibi-Témiscamingue vs Saguenay -
   Lac-Saint-Jean
 * bracketed numbers appended to the name (Laval, Montréal)

I am not an expert in how admin_level=5 boundaries in Québec, were 
setup, so I am just going to point out the difference here and leave 
it to someone else to adjust as necessary.


(The reason I'm looking at this is to consider to make Québec regsion 
into multiple parts for faster processing in OSMOSE, based on 
admin_level=5)



Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Bas-Saint-Laurent
Capitale-Nationale
Centre-du-Québec
Chaudière-Appalaches
Côte-Nord
Estrie
Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine
Lanaudière
Laurentides
Laval (13)
Mauricie
Montérégie
Montréal (06)
Nord-du-Québec
Nunavik
Outaouais
Saguenay - Lac-Saint-Jean

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

[Talk-ca] Phone number quality checks

[Matthew Darwin]

Hello all,

OSMOSE now has validations for phone numbers in Canada.

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?country=canada_%2A=2500=3092

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

[Talk-ca] Business Improvement Area tagging

[Matthew Darwin]

Hello all,

I'm not sure if this applies to other provinces or not, so I thought I 
would ask here.


In Ontario there is a concept of "Business Improvement Area" ("BIA" 
for short) that has the power to tax businesses within their zone  
(see http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1529.aspx for details).


I want to tag these in OSM, so then you can run a query to find all 
businesses within a BIA. Sometimes the boundaries of the BIA are very 
tight and just cover things that are actual businesses, and sometimes 
the boundaries of a BIA are very loose and cover lots of area 
including residential... and when a new business comes up later in 
that area it automatically is a part of the BIA.


I am thinking that the *relation type=boundary, 
boundary=local_authority *might be applicable here, and define either 
a Canada specific definition maybe just Ontario, depending if the 
concept exists elsewhere.


I would like to get people's opinion on this idea  Or please 
suggest something else.



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dlocal_authority

 * type =boundary
   
 * boundary
   =local_authority
 * name =*
 * local_authority:CA
   
=BIA


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

Re: [Talk-ca] canvec imports

[Matthew Darwin]

Andrew,

Keep up the great work making OSM great for Canada.


On 2018-11-27 1:36 p.m., Andrew Lester wrote:
I agree. A selective import from CANVEC is fine and generally gives 
good results. As long as you don't import things like forests and 
buildings (which are both woefully out-of-date, broken, or outright 
wrong), there usually isn't a problem. However, if someone just 
imports an entire block of data without inspecting it, that's when 
we run into the visible issues that the peanut gallery picks apart.


Andrew
Victoria, BC

--
*From: *"James" 
*To: *"Andrew" 
*Cc: *"talk-ca" 
*Sent: *Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:58:19 AM
*Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] canvec imports

not sure why Canvec always gets shat uppon, their water features are 
great and pretty accurate, the forest/landcover on the other hand 
needs fixing before import. I think it's clear enough on the canvec 
wiki page that only experienced mappers/importers should attempt a 
canvec import.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Stats Canada new building outlines Open Data do we wish to import it?

[Matthew Darwin]

Of course.

Could use the ottawa import approach:  "leave existing buildings alone".

Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2018-11-02 7:03 p.m., OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

On Nov 2, 2018, at 3:58 PM, John Whelan  wrote:

So to paraphrase your reply.  A centralised import plan in the wiki which says 
the data is approved for import and should be tackled in chunks of some sort of 
region since we are a decentralized organization.  Which I think is similar to 
the way Task Manager works.  The project is broken into tiles and each tile is 
tackled completed separately. The 'Tiles' would of course be somewhat larger in 
area and there is a technical limitation as to how big an area can be 
downloaded from the OSM server.

The local mappers certainly have a role to play and because the goal is not 
only to import the buildings but to enrich the tags with commercial etc so the 
tag enrichment would be a task that a mapathon could tackle.  I personally 
don't think a new mapper using iD in a mapathon has a role to play in importing 
the building outlines into OSM.

The plan should include the technical steps to import the data.

AND, must include how existing data in OSM (as there appears to be "in some cases, 
significant" (I haven't examined the entire dataset, to do so would be overwhelming) which 
overlap with the "official datasets" will be conflated.  That is a critical step.

SteveA
California
___
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] Stats Canada new building outlines Open Data do we wish to import it?

[Matthew Darwin]

I think we should identify who would like to be involved in import for 
each municipality.  (on a wiki page). On the page, identify roles, 
like:


 * coordinator
 * import data preparation
 * QA
 * import execution
 * data enrichment (commercial, residential, etc... tagging)
 * etc..

Then we can see where we have gaps and how to fill them.  Perhaps some 
municipalities have local mappers who will be happy to do the tagging 
of building type (and can do some validation if the buildings look 
right), but no technical capability to execute the actual import.  And 
maybe some folks who did imports before will help areas where we have 
no technical expertise.



On 2018-11-02 6:58 p.m., John Whelan wrote:



So to paraphrase your reply.  A centralised import plan in the wiki 
which says the data is approved for import and should be tackled in 
chunks of some sort of region since we are a decentralized 
organization.  Which I think is similar to the way Task Manager 
works.  The project is broken into tiles and each tile is tackled 
completed separately. The 'Tiles' would of course be somewhat larger 
in area and there is a technical limitation as to how big an area 
can be downloaded from the OSM server.


The local mappers certainly have a role to play and because the goal 
is not only to import the buildings but to enrich the tags with 
commercial etc so the tag enrichment would be a task that a mapathon 
could tackle.  I personally don't think a new mapper using iD in a 
mapathon has a role to play in importing the building outlines into OSM.


The plan should include the technical steps to import the data.

Thanks

Cheerio John

Pierre Béland wrote on 2018-11-02 6:35 PM:

Pour le Québec, je retrouve les données de plusieurs municipalités
Montréal, Longueuil, Repentigny, Shawinigan, Québec et Rimouski.

Première observation rapide, aussi, elles sont de bonne qualité et 
proviennent je suppose des cadastres des municipalités. En milieu 
urbain, cela facilite beaucoup l'identification des immeubles 
juxtaposés.


Je vois ailleurs, aux États-Unis notamment avec les données de 
Microsoft, que les projets sont par région ou municipalité.


Je pense qu'il faut éviter un projet trop centralisé tant pour 
assurer un meilleur contrôle du déroulement dans chaque 
municipalité, région que pour permettre aux communautés des 
provinces et communautés locales de s'impliquer.


La rédaction d' une page wiki pour l'ensemble du Canada peut 
répondre aux exigences du groupe Import de OSM. Mais l'organisation 
doit être décentralisée.


Le rôle de cette liste doit être un forum pour supporter les 
communautés des provinces et communautés locales. C'est une 
occasion de dynamiser ces communautés avec un projet très 
intéressant. De là, ils auront le goût de compléter la carte pour y 
décrire les infrastructures locales.


Si trop de tâches sont initiées en parallèle sur un gestionnaire de 
tâches, il sera très difficile de coordonner, assurer le suivi, une 
progression coordonnée. Il faut éviter que des mapathons ou 
organisations externes s'invitent pour collaborer à de telles 
tâches avec les milliers et milliers de personnes qui viennent 
jardiner quelques heures sans organisation / formation réelle et 
laissent ensuite le tout sans dessus, dessous.


--
Sent from Postbox 



___
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] Fwd: BC2020i - update Sept 2018

[Matthew Darwin]

 Forwarded Message 
Subject:BC2020i - update Sept 2018
Date:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 13:54:41 +
From:   Alasia, Alessandro (STATCAN) 
To: many



Dear all,

I hope you had a good and relaxing summer. I imagine this email will 
find you all back in the office or at your activity.


I have been in touch with many over the summer and I know that 
numerous things are moving and brewing, which is great! At our end we 
have continued working on our open database of building (we expect 
this to be shared soon). It has now passed the 4.3 million mark for 
number of building footprints.


In terms of *updates from our end*, we recently established a 
collaborative agreement with the Bing Maps team (Microsoft) in the 
hope that, by joining forces and avoiding duplication of efforts, what 
they did in the US can be replicated in Canada (see 
https://blogs.bing.com/maps/2018-06/microsoft-releases-125-million-building-footprints-in-the-us-as-open-data). 
Additionally, we started a dialogue with OpenAddresses to explore 
collaborations and, most recently, began work on an Open Business 
Repository, which mimics the approach of OpenAddresses but uses open 
business records. The preliminary results on these and other open data 
explorations are very encouraging.


In various conversations, I learned that a lot of great work has been 
done at your end as well! And talking with some of you, *the idea of a 
second meeting on the topic of BC2020i has been tossed around*. Since 
the initiative has matured, slowly but surely, I think it would be 
great to get together again, take a stock of where we are at, and see 
what the next steps could be. Like last year, I think we may be able 
to offer the venue.


With that said, if a second meeting (say “*BC2020i-2*”) is organized, 
I would hope it to be a bit more focused. An ideal outcome coming out 
of BC2020i-2 could be the following:


·Stronger buy-in from some of the key federal departments interested 
in building data


·Greater involvement (maybe sponsorship J?) from some of the key 
players in the private sector who have shown a great interest in 
supporting open data platforms, which could help smaller businesses, 
NGOs, and students/academics to become more involved.


·More awareness and highlighting of some of the 
local-municipal-regional initiatives. I heard of very interesting work 
happening in the Niagara region, for instance. And same for the work 
that has been done by many academic departments (I just had a chat 
with a graduate student from the University of Waterloo who is 
researching the BC2020i)


·And of course, it would be great if this could be an opportunity to 
solidify the presence of OSM-Canada in the institutional arena (as an 
institutional player as well?)


One way to re-think BC2020i is by placing it in the context of a *data 
co-op*. And now that this initiative is past its infancy, how can we 
solidify this data co-op for the benefit of all?


It would be great if we can share ideas on all of the above. My team 
and I remain committed to facilitating this and moving the discussion 
forward. Ideally, *we could target a date in January 2019* for a 
second meeting. Ottawa is such a lovely place to visit in that 
season…we have a frozen canal and beaver tails! – the latter being 
essentially a flat doughnut.


Looking forward to hearing from you,

Alessandro and the DEIL-Team

*PS.*Over the fall my team and I will present our work on open data as 
well as make reference to the ideas of BC2020i in many different 
places and we hope to see you in person at some of these events. In 
particular we will be at:


·Sept 28 - Open First Day  – Ottawa

·Oct 26-28 – People, Places, and Public Engagement Conference - St. 
John’s, NFL


·Nov 6-9 - StatCan International Methodological Symposium - Ottawa

·Nov 7-9 – CODS18  - Niagara Falls (to be 
confirmed)


·Nov – GIS Day – probably at McGill- Montreal (to be confirmed)

·A longer list of seminars and workshops with Fed Departments

Alessandro Alasia
Chief | Chef

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
alessandro.ala...@canada.ca  / 
(613) 796-6049


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Trans-Canada Highway research

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Olivia,

I spent some fixing tags on TCH ways in *Ontario* in the last few 
weeks.  Do an overpass query on nat_name=Trans-Canada Highway in 
Ontario (see below).


Is it possible to build a query that shows ways with 
nat_name=Trans-Canada Highway and not part of the relation, and 
vice-versa.  It would make the task of fixing the routes easier.  Also 
if the query was built into OSMOSE or another error checker then we 
can have some hope it is less likely to get out of sync in the future.


Also it is not clear if Highway 17A is part of the TCH or not.  
Wikipedia says yes, comments in OSM say it is not.  Some research is 
needed here I guess.


I am willing to help in Ontario.

[out:xml][timeout:100];
{{geocodeArea:Ontario}}->.searchArea;
(
way["nat_name"](area.searchArea);
);
(._;>;);
out meta;

On 2018-04-27 05:37 AM, Olivia Robu - (p) wrote:


Hello,

  Regarding our proposal for Trans-Canada Highway, we came with the 
Wiki page on OSM, as we promised, where we listed all the relations 
that  make up the Trans-Canada Highway. Also, we inserted a status 
column where all of you can see the situation of every relation, 
whether it is broken or not. Here is the link to the Wiki page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Trans-Canada_Highway. 
*Also, we want to ask you if any of you are willing to help us fix 
the broken relations and keep the wiki page updated with the current 
status?* *After we collect some feedback from you, we want to get 
involved in correcting the broken relations and we will send you an 
update of our progress. *


As we have discussed in the other mails, we want to update 
Trans-Canada Highway (ID 1307243). This will not affect the 
currently existing routes, but it will have the same geometry and 
the following tags:


   type=route

route=road

name=Trans-Canada Highway

 name:fr=Route Transcanadienne - we propose this new tag 
for the route name (as we seen that is used only for the way) due to 
the Francophone provinces through which this new route passes.


Regards,

Olivia

*From:* Olivia Robu - (p)
*Sent:* 29 martie 2018 09:42
*To:* 'talk-ca@openstreetmap.org' 
*Subject:* RE: [Talk-ca] Trans-Canada Highway research

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback, it has been very helpful. In relation 
to that we come with another proposal: to update the super relation 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1307243)  from the east to 
west of Canada, that includes all the routes and has the folowing tags:


type=route

route=road

   name=Trans-Canada Highway

name:fr=Route Transcanadienne - we propose this new tag for the 
route name (as we seen that is used only for the way) due to the 
Francophone provinces through which this new route passes


Regarding the way name tag and the ref we won't make any changes. 
Also, for the route type (motorway, trunk, primary, secondary, 
teriary) we will ask for your advice for specific cases.


For the broken relations of Trans-Canada Highway we will create a 
wiki page on OSM where we will describe each route and put a status 
of the relation and a comment box for all the members from our 
community to see and maybe help us to fix this problem.


We will come back with un update for the wiki page.

Regards,

Olivia Robu



___
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] Fwd: Re: Building Canada 2020 (BC2020i) - update Dec 20, 2017

[Matthew Darwin]

Forwarded message...


Subject:Re: Building Canada 2020 (BC2020i) - update Dec 20, 2017
Date:   Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:21:22 -0500
From:   keith hartley 





Hi building 20/20 list
Last Friday I worked with one of my colleagues and a high school 
teacher to map out some things on openstreetmap with high school 
students!


To do this we talked about what would work with the high school 
curriculum, and with an OSM component. We agreed to look at something 
with built environments and some of the limitations people may have 
accessing them. This class has some GIS teaching behind them.


Last Wednesday Rob brought in a person from the City of Brandon to 
talk about what the city is doing about accessibility. Then he gave 
the students an assignment to capture if a building was accessible 
over the next few days.


Once they came back on the Friday I did a talk on openstreetmap, some 
of the benefits of open data they could use for school work, and how 
osm is helping out across the world (HOT mapping, ect). As most of the 
buildings were already there we didn't need to add a lot to the map. 
The students used the same login (issue with students having their 
accounts and privacy)  and used iD editor to add if buildings they 
looked at were wheelchair accessible or not. In some cases they 
building wasn't there, so I added the basic how to add a building, 
square it, satellite alignment and other editing tasks they might use.


In the future we'll probably use field papers to do a larger project 
(the field papers server was down that day!) and be a little more 
ambitious.


I looked over the data later to see if everything made sense and the 
jokes were corrected (one student edited the Robs house to be a fish 
food restaurant).


Although small, it was pretty successful way of getting secondary 
students into mapping with a guided approach.


A secondary added bonus was city of Brandon provided data, however 
need to sort out licensing stuff before adding anything to the map.


Cheers,
Keith


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Trans-Canada Highway research

[Matthew Darwin]

I should clarify my comment below that in some places the "local road 
name" is "Trans-Canada Highway".



I think it would be helpful if you split out your proposal province by 
province.  Provincial governments are generally responsible for 
highways (including the TCH), so the naming is consistent only within 
a province.  Please review 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Canada_Highway


On 2018-03-26 09:25 AM, Matthew Darwin wrote:


  * Another question is related to the priority of the names in the
name value tag and also for the ref tag. If we have a way that
has a street name (“Old Highway 16” or “North York River Road”)
and two routes that overlap (ex: Trans-Canada Highway and
Highway 11). What is the name and the ref that should appear in
the way name tag and ref tag?



Highway 11.  Local road first.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Trans-Canada Highway research

[Matthew Darwin]

On 2018-03-26 07:20 AM, Olivia Robu - (p) wrote:


Hello,

The Telenav Map team has done some research on the status of the 
ways and relations of Trans-Canada Highway.


Here are some conclusions from this research:

  * The highway is formed from 30 routes;



The Trans-Canada highway is not really 1 highway, so this is probably 
not surprising.   In many places, the Trans-Canada highway splits in 
2, so probably cannot have 1 route anyway.


  * Every route has different names for the name tag, such as:
street names, other routes names or Trans-Canada highway name in
different forms;
  * The issue above is repeating for the ref tag;



IMO the routes and the refs need to match, or the refs need to be 
removed given that routes should supersede refs.  In my investigations 
in Ontario I see lots of places where routes and refs don't match.


  * The name of Trans-Canada highway has more than one form
(Trans-Canada Highway, TransCanada Highway, Trans Canada
Highway, etc);



Probably good to standardize that.  However, in Quebec I would think 
the French name would take precedence. "/Route Transcanadienne"/



  * Another issue is the variety of names in other tags related to
it (such as: name:en, name:fr, alt_name, alt_name:en,
alt_name:fr, nat_name);
  * There are some routes that don’t have a route name only ref (5
routes);
  * There are some routes that overlap:
  o in Manitoba: - PTH 1 (MB Trans-Canada Highway) and
Trans-Canada Highway (Super);

- Yellowhead Highway and PTH 16 (MB Trans-Canada Highway);

  o in Alberta: Trans-Canada Highway (AB) and Trans-Canada
Highway (Super);
  o in British Columbia: - Trans-Canada Highway (BC, Super) and
Trans-Canada Highway;

  * About 90% of these routes are broken;
  * About 80% of these routes have highway value flip flop
(motorway, trunk, primary);



Highway 17 in Ontario is not a motorway.  So I would expect different 
segments to be different.  Highway 417 (motorway) changes to Highway 
17 (trunk) just west of Arnprior Ontario.  This is correct.


We propose to make some improvements to standardize all the routes. 
We would like to get your thoughts and feedback on the following 
questions:


  * What is the correct form for the name that appears in the way
name tag? For example: “Highway 417” is part of Trans-Canada
Highway and has the name value tag “Highway 417”. To resolve
this issue, we would need to standardize the ways’ name tag for
all the provinces. The question is, should we modify the way
names in to “Trans-Canada Highway”, or should we insert the name
“Trans-Canada Highway” at the end of the name, like this:
“Highway 417 (Trans-Canada Highway)”, or should we leave it like
it is?



No, definitely not.


 *


  * Another issue is related to the official name of the highway.
According to our research the official name for Trans-Canada
Highway is “Trans-Canada Highway”. In our research we have found
several forms of this name: TransCanada Highway, Trans Canada
Highway, etc. Should we change all the names to “Trans-Canada
Highway”?


In Quebec probably "/Route Transcanadienne"/


 *


  * Another question is related to the priority of the names in the
name value tag and also for the ref tag. If we have a way that
has a street name (“Old Highway 16” or “North York River Road”)
and two routes that overlap (ex: Trans-Canada Highway and
Highway 11). What is the name and the ref that should appear in
the way name tag and ref tag?



Highway 11.  Local road first.


 *


  * In case of overlapping identical routes (ex: in Manitoba there
is two routes for Trans-Canada Highway). What should be the best
approach?

The Trans-Canada Highway has multiple routes.  It is not one highway.  
The graphic on wikipedia, probably shows this clearly. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Canada_Highway


 *


  * In case of highway value flip flop (motorway, trunk, primary),
there are several segments like this outside the cities (ex.:
Route “Ontario Highway 17 (Blind River to North Bay) (ID
3739829)”, or Route “Trans Canada Highway 104” (ID 1732797)).
For areas outside the cities we propose to change the highway
value into motorway/trunk. What do you think about this issue?



If it is really a motorway, yes.  But many places outside of cities it 
is not a motorway.


 *


We think that one approach to resolve the first problem could be to 
add “Trans-Canada Highway” or “Highway 417 (Trans-Canada Highway)” 
to the way name for all the routes, and the ref number correspondent 
to each route that forms the Trans-Canada Highway.




You could add an alt_name or similar tag.


We look forward to hearing your feedback and hope to improve the 
situation together.


Here is the link to github ticket that we created: 
https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues/57





Highway 17 just west of 

Re: [Talk-ca] Poorly drawn buildings #GEOG231-W18; #BC2020; #UCalgary-GEOG231; #BC2020-UCalgary

[Matthew Darwin]

Today I found that people using the same hashtags 
(#GEOG231-W18;#BC2020;#UCalgary-GEOG231;#BC2020-UCalgary) are drawing 
buildings on top of each other.  Eg duplicates. Using ID editor.  
There appears to be an ongoing problem here.


On 2018-03-19 10:53 AM, john whelan wrote:
I think Pierre has already identified the problem some time ago and 
it has been raised with Stat Can and others who are involved with 
BC2020 not that anyone admits to being responsible for BC2020 and 
Geoweek. So hopefully we won't be adding more low quality buildings.


Cheerio John

On 19 March 2018 at 10:42, Matthew Darwin <matt...@mdarwin.ca 
<mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>> wrote:


Hi all,

I noticed some poorly drawn (not-square) buildings in Calgary
tagged with the hashags
#GEOG231-W18;#BC2020;#UCalgary-GEOG231;#BC2020-UCalgary. If you
are involved in this project, you might want to review the
quality. I added a "fixme" tag to the problems I happen to notice.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
<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] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

Pierre,

This is a good idea, and I plan to do it.   My current challenge is to 
know what things people think "need correction".  I'm starting these 
discussions to see if there is any consensus before I go writing 
code.  If you (or anyone else) has ideas, please do post here (or 
email directly).  Obviously I will not re-build tools that already 
exist, but rather focus on Canada-specific issues (eg postal code format).


The checks I made for the City Of Ottawa are here: 
http://matthew.davintech.ca/osm/.  I will be able to re-use some of 
what I have done for Ottawa, but based on the discussion so far on 
talk-CA, the list of things that /might/ need correction is less than 
what the local community in Ottawa might consider as /possible/ issues 
for correction.


My current employer is in Montréal (previous one was in Joliette) and 
I regularly work out of Université du Québec en Outaouais so hopefully 
you'll consider me part of the local community in Quebec, even though 
I live in Ontario.  :-)



On 2018-03-10 03:27 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:


Pour revenir aux suggestions de Matthew, de façon à impliquer / 
motiver les communautés locales, ce serait d'offrir les outils et 
listes d'objets à corriger un peu comme le fait Osmose et autres 
outils de QA.




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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

Searching on "110 Laurier Avenue West, on" in Nominatim already works 
(it finds Ottawa City hall) even though the address has no 
addr:province tag for City Halle.  So I don't think this is a good 
reason to be adding addr:province/addr:province:short_name tags. IMO.  
Unless there is another use case I am missing.  Similarly your example 
of searching for "Toronto, ON" works fine.


I'm guessing this works because the Ontario admin relation has 
ISO3166-2 tag of CA-ON




On 2018-03-10 04:51 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:

Non, inutile si relations. Dans relation province d'Ontario
- ajouter short_name='ON'.

De cette façon, Recherche Toronto, ON
devrait fonctionner. A essayer :)


Pierre


Le samedi 10 mars 2018 15:39:53 HNE, john whelan 
 a écrit :



So you're suggesting adding short_name='ON' to ones that have 
addr:province=Ontario


How would that work?

addr:province=Ontario
addr:province:short_name=ON ?

Merci John



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

[Talk-ca] Poorly drawn buildings #GEOG231-W18; #BC2020; #UCalgary-GEOG231; #BC2020-UCalgary

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi all,

I noticed some poorly drawn (not-square) buildings in Calgary tagged 
with the hashags 
#GEOG231-W18;#BC2020;#UCalgary-GEOG231;#BC2020-UCalgary.  If you are 
involved in this project, you might want to review the quality. I 
added a "fixme" tag to the problems I happen to notice.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

So I've tidied up the addr:province/state tags, now using only 
addr:province, leaving anything that would be generally considered 
"correct" either spelt out in full or using English provincial 
abbreviation as you might use in a mailing address. Also left "Quebec" 
(no accent).
I would rather like to clean this up further, however, I have stopped 
just at tidying up things that were mis-spelt or had inconsistent case.


Is there any view on where to go next?

These are the current counts:

69008   Nova Scotia
39668   ON
33280   British Columbia
 7788   Alberta
 6584   AB
 4771   BC
 4520   Québec
 3772   Ontario
 2791   QC
 2140   NB
 1744   SK
 1285   NU
 1066   NL
 1022   Manitoba
  879   New Brunswick
  527   Quebec
  307   PE
  234   NS
  222   MB
  163   Saskatchewan
   23   Nunavut
   14   NT
   11   YT
    9   Yukon
    3   Northwest Territories

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

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

[Matthew Darwin]

Rob,

One other thing to think about while others are discussing the 
licensing topic:  What is the quality of the buildings?  Has that been 
reviewed?


 * Are they in the right place?
 * Are they the right size?
 * Are they squared off (rectangles)
 * Are they aligned to each other and the road (not slightly mis-aligned)
 * Are they current (not buildings which have been torn down or
   otherwise changed)
 * If there are attributes like "height" in your dataset, is that
   accurate?
 * etc...

I've not worked much on buildings, but probably others could add 
comments about what are the criteria for "good buildings".



On 2018-03-06 11:05 AM, Rob Halko wrote:


Good morning,

The Region of Durham has recently purchased Building Footprints data 
for the entire Region, and it is available as Open Data: 
http://opendata.durham.ca/datasets/building-footprints


We would like to import these to Open Street Map to engage the 
community and help improve the overall map. We are supporters of OSM 
and wish to regularly partner in improving the data.


In particular, we are hosting a mapathon on March 29, which asks for 
student input to add attributes to the buildings based on OSM 
guidelines for the Building Canada 2020 project: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020#The_data_that_could_be_mapped


We have read your Import guidelines and are here to express our 
interest in contributing our building data. The intention is not to 
overwrite those buildings that the community has built, but bridge 
the gap to include the rest of the 200,000+ buildings in Durham 
(largely residential), which are missing from OSM.


Please let us know how we can contribute this valuable data on 
behalf of the community.






*Rob Halko | Supervisor, GIS*
Regional Municipality of Durham | Corporate Services - Information 
Technology

905-668-4113 ext 2189 | Mobile: 289-927-7168
Corporate Values: • Ethical Leadership • Accountability • Service 
Excellence • Continuous Learning and Improvement • Inclusion


THIS MESSAGE IS FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND 
MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, 
CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER ANY RELEVANT 
PRIVACY LEGISLATION. No rights to any privilege have been waived. If 
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, 
conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other 
use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the 
intended recipient and have received this message in error, please 
notify me by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this 
message.



___
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] Emergency Request for Tasking Manager Trainer

[Matthew Darwin]

[prune CC list so this gets posted to the list]

Hi Jonathan,

I'm probably missing something, but you don't link training videos 
from the tasking manager.   The tasking manager is about splitting up 
some pre-defined mapping jobs (eg trace outline of building from bing 
satellite image), into small chunks that people can finish in a short 
amount of time.  So people don't work on things other people are 
already working on.


If people are adding what they already know, then you don't need a 
tasking manager. People just go ahead and add it, if it is not already 
there (checking if it is already there is important so we don't get 
duplicate things).  Presumably beginners are only going to add one 
thing at a time in ID editor, and they're all in the same room, so 
scope for conflict is small (easily solved with everyone announcing 
what they are doing before starting it).


For your session later this month, it sounds to me like you want 
someone to


 * introduce the topic of mapping in OSM
 * introduce the ID editor
 * go through some samples of things to be added
 * then everybody get on their laptop and start trying to edit
   things, with the leader checking what is going on

(this is how my introductory session went last April when I joined a 
meetup group in Ottawa)


The task manager is not needed in this scenario.

But please correct me if I totally missed your point.

On 2018-03-07 08:55 AM, Jonathan Brown wrote:


We want to run the mapathon by setting up a task in the Tasking 
Manager with links to the OSMLearning video tutorials and use cases 
for the instruction section. We want to make the task as simple as 
possible (e.g., adding points of interest based on participants’ 
local knowledge augmented with information from social services and 
NGOs who will be participating).


The goal is to have the participants apply OSM morning training to a 
problem solving task in the afternoon, similar to what Sterling 
Quinn did for the Philly Fresh Food Mapathon: 
http://2017.phillytechweek.com/events/philly_mapathon


We would need to add tasks to the OSM Tasking Manager that encompass 
the school boards and schools within the geography to be mapped - 
Durham Region, Niagara Region, Northumberland County, and Greater 
Peterborough area. For March 29 the priority is for Durham Region 
and Northumberland County.


We are looking for a train-the-trainer model for 8-10 facilitators 
(teachers, senior secondary and postsecondary students) that can be 
repurposed for other mapathon events this spring and fall.


There will be a follow-up event in the early fall. We are exploring 
ways to build this type of mapathon event into the workflows of the 
educational and local planning structures and processes at the 
municipal and regional level. Alessandro and his colleagues at the 
TB Open Data branch are well aware of what we are trying to do.


Jonathan

*From: *Matthew Darwin <mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>
*Sent: *Tuesday, March 6, 2018 9:06 PM
*To: *Jonathan Brown <mailto:jonab...@gmail.com>; 
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>

*Cc: *Brock Baker <brock_ba...@kprdsb.ca> <mailto:brock_ba...@kprdsb.ca>
*Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Emergency Request for Tasking Manager Trainer

Hi Jonathan,

Are you trying to set up the tasking manager, or you just want to 
add a project to the existing tasking manager 
http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/? If you describe the details of what 
you're trying to accomplish (look at existing tasks), then someone 
can probably add a task for you.


Or do you want to know how to run a mapathon using the task manager?

Or?

A bit more details of what you're trying to do would be helpful...




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

Re: [Talk-ca] Emergency Request for Tasking Manager Trainer

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Jonathan,

Are you trying to set up the tasking manager, or you just want to add 
a project to the existing tasking manager http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/?  
If you describe the details of what you're trying to accomplish (look 
at existing tasks), then someone can probably add a task for you.


Or do you want to know how to run a mapathon using the task manager?

Or?

A bit more details of what you're trying to do would be helpful...


On 2018-03-05 10:15 PM, Jonathan Brown wrote:


We have an event coming up that the Durham Region Open Data folks 
have kindly offered to host. We are looking for a Tasking Manager 
trainer to train OSM facilitator for the day and/or provide a 
morning session training to beginner mappers from four to five high 
schools in the area. There will be a follow-up event in early fall 
as well, so this is not intended to be a one-off event. Any help 
would be most appreciated. Here is a link with the details for March 
29:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S3RYIVxAEe_1c_vIQcwwMg3dChU4K-szcR8NdQsjvak/edit

Jamie, feel free to contact me offline if you have any suggestions. 
I was at the Toronto OSM Meetup this evening and your name came up.


Jonathan Brown

*From: *talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org 


*Sent: *Monday, March 5, 2018 7:01 AM
*To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject: *Talk-ca Digest, Vol 121, Issue 13

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. weeklyOSM #397 2018-02-20-2018-02-26 (weeklyteam)

   2. hebdoOSM Nº 397 2018-02-20-2018-02-26 (weeklyteam)

--

Message: 1

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 10:47:03 -0800 (PST)

From: weeklyteam 

To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Subject: [Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #397 2018-02-20-2018-02-26

Message-ID: <5a9c3f27.55e01c0a.1d2c5.6...@mx.google.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 397,

is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of 
all things happening in the openstreetmap world:


http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/10075/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM?

who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages

where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3


--

Message: 2

Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:10:53 -0800 (PST)

From: weeklyteam 

To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Subject: hebdoOSM Nº 397 2018-02-20-2018-02-26

Message-ID: <5a9cfb8d.51bbdf0a.960f4.3...@mx.google.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 397 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de 
paraître *en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :


http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/10075/

Bonne lecture !

hebdoOSM ?

Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages

Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3


--

Subject: Digest Footer

___

Talk-ca mailing list

Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

--

End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 121, Issue 13





___
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] Formatting of Municipality Names in Ontario

[Matthew Darwin]

ownship Of Prince
    182 Township Of Dubreuilville
    170 Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh
    154 Township of MacHin
    142 Township of Tudor and Cashel
    141 Township Of Machin
    140 Township Of Fauquier-strickland
    132 Township Of Val Rita-harty
    126 Township Of White River
    122 Township Of Larder Lake
    116 Township Of Mattice-Val Côté
    112 Township of Carlow/Mayo
    110 Township of Nairn and Hyman
    104 Township of Sioux Narrows-Nestor Falls
    102 Township Of Matachewan
    101 Township of Conmee
    100 Township Of Whitewater Region
 89 Township of O'Connor
 88 Township of Baldwin
 87 Township of Tehkummah
 58 Township of Joly
 57 Township of Gordon
 55 Township Of Schreiber
 54 Township of Faraday
 42 Township Of Opasatika
 36 Township of Chisholm
 26 Township of James
 22 Township of Burpee and Mills
 12 Township of South Algonquin
 12 Township of North Algona Wilberforce
 12 Township of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards
 12 Township of Greater Madawaska
 10 Township Of Faraday
  6 Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan
  4 Township Of Sables-spanish Rivers
  3 Township of Wilmot
  2 Williamsford (Township of Chatsworth)
  2 Township of the North Shore
  1 Township of North Dumfires
  1 Township of North Dumfies
  1 Township of Chatsworth (Williamsford)
  1 Township of Cavan Monaghan
  1 Township of Adjala-Tosorontio (Rosemont)

    790 District of Thunder Bay
    508 District of Parry Sound
    471 District Of Kenora
    384 District Of Algoma
    264 District of Sudbury
    186 District of Algoma
    185 District of Kenora
    128 District Of Timiskaming
    119 District Of Thunder Bay
    108 District Of Sudbury
 61 District Of Cochrane
 43 District of Timiskaming
 28 District of Nipissing
 15 District of Manitoulin

   6909 County of Brant

   1056 Village of Merrickville-Wolford
    592 Village of Casselman
    551 Village of Point Edward
    330 Village of South River
    254 Village of Oil Springs
    252 Village of Sundridge
    208 Village of Newbury
    204 Village of Burk's Falls
    174 Village of Westport
    112 Village Of Hilton Beach

 and I think that's it for Ontario.


On 2018-02-23 11:50 AM, Matthew Darwin wrote:


I will leave the wonky towns (the ones that have parentheses) for 
cleanup later.  The other "Town Of" are done.


I am working on "Municipality Of" now.




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

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

[Matthew Darwin]

I will leave the wonky towns (the ones that have parentheses) for 
cleanup later.  The other "Town Of" are done.


I am working on "Municipality Of" now.

On 2018-02-18 11:04 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:


Hi Bill,

Thanks for the feedback.  OSM is updated accordingly.

I also changed "City of Prince Edward County" to "Prince Edward" (I 
didn't receive any comments on that one).   "City Of" updates in 
Ontario is now complete (at least until someone adds another one).


Updates to "Town Of" are now in  progress.   If anyone has comments 
about how to handle the following please do speak up:


   3053 Town of the Blue Mountains   => "Blue Mountains"  [remove "the"]
 14 Town of Caledon (Bolton)
  2 Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (Stouffville)
  2 Town of Caledon (Sandhill)
  1 Town of Saugeen Shores (Southampton)
  1 Town of Mono (Rosemont)
  1 Town of Huntsville (Port Sydney)
  1 Town of Clarington (Enniskillen)

Following towns, I will be updating "Municipality Of" (after that 
"Township Of").  The list for "Municipality Of" is:


  22881 Municipality of Chatham-Kent
   9906 Municipality of Clarington
   3962 Municipality of West Grey
   3929 Municipality of Grey Highlands
   3815 Municipality of Kincardine
   3690 Municipality of Trent Hills
   3549 Municipality of Leamington
   3543 Municipality of Middlesex Centre
   3293 Municipality of Port Hope
   3284 Municipality of North Grenville
   3192 Municipality of Brockton
   2794 Municipality of Meaford
   2793 Municipality of Highlands East
   2706 Municipality of Arran-Elderslie
   2462 Municipality of Thames Centre
   2439 Municipality of the Nation
   2418 Municipality of Tweed
   2320 Municipality of Southwest Middlesex
   2275 Municipality of Brighton
   2194 Municipality of North Perth
   2145 Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula
   1981 Municipality of Central Elgin
   1634 Municipality of South Bruce
   1501 Municipality Of Greenstone
   1462 Municipality of Marmora and Lake
   1424 Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge
   1374 Municipality of Hastings Highlands
   1265 Municipality of Centre Hastings
   1227 Municipality of West Nipissing
   1197 Municipality of Brooke-Alvinston
   1168 Municipality of Bayham
   1060 Municipality of Whitestone
   1015 Municipality of McDougall
    989 Municipality of French River
    943 Municipality of Wawa
    895 Municipality of Magnetawan
    817 Municipality of Shuniah
    790 Municipality of Lambton Shores
    710 Municipality Of Markstay-warren
    665 Municipality of Neebing
    634 Municipality Of Huron Shores
    460 Municipality of West Elgin
    414 Municipality of Huron Shores
    367 Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich
    293 Municipality Of St.-charles
    281 Municipality of Powassan
    236 Municipality of North Middlesex
    165 Municipality of Killarney
 47 Municipality Of West Nipissing
 46 Municipality Of Charlton And Dack
 23 Municipality Of Wawa
 18 Municipality of Callander
  7 Municipality Of Sioux Lookout
  4 Municipality Of Killarney
  2 Municipality Of French River
  1 Municipality of Brockton;Municipality of South Bruce


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Expanding vs abbreviating

[Matthew Darwin]

Maybe the wiki needs updating, because it doesn't align with this 
discussion:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines


   Street names

Many Canadian cities and towns use the grid based structure, the 
presence of numbered streets and avenues is very common.


/Suggestion:/ Name these streets/avenues with the full name (such as 
51st Street Northeast) and let the renderer sort out the abbreviation 
where required. Where the numbering system ends below 30, consider 
spelling out the numbers.




Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2018-02-20 09:20 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:

On 2018-02-20 01:15 PM, Viajero Perdido wrote:

But if that changes it so it's no longer "the name", logically that rule
doesn't apply.

It seems that in the US cities in OSM that I've looked at, mappers have
been fairly (but not completely) consistent in using full quadrant
names: Northeast, Northwest, …

Quadrant addresses in Canadian cities seem to be almost perfectly
consistent in using NE, NW, …

I must admit, the US map looks very strange with the words spelled out
in full.

  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] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

I have summarized the discussion we had here over the last week or so  
on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines for 
easy reference in the future.  It is:



   Municipality Names

Municipality names are to be spelt according to how they are listed in 
NRCan (http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search) or other 
official source. That means:


 *

   Do not include "City of", "Municipality of" or similar in the name
   unless that is officially part of the name.   "Village of Queen
   Charlotte" (BC) is correct, "City of Toronto" is incorrect (should
   be "Toronto").

 *

   Do not expand "St." to "Saint" or "Ste" to "Sainte" just to
   conform to OSM's "don't abbreviate names" rule. If the city name
   is normally has it expanded, then it is maintained as expanded in
   OSM. If it is not normally expanded, then it is not expanded in
   OSM. "Saint John" (NB) and "St. John's" (NL) are both correct.


Feel free to clarify further on the wiki or continue the discussion 
here...



Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2018-02-19 06:33 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:

On 2018-02-19 05:08 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

Have you passed by talk-gb? They have a fair amount of "St" names and
some authority as to how to do things in OSM.

The UK has Bury St Edmunds, Chapel St Leonards, Lytham St Annes, Ottery
St Mary, St Andrews, St Anne, St Austell, St Blazey, St Columb Major, St
Helens, St Ives, St Monans and St Neots all as town names in OSM. The
only two "Saint .*" towns in the whole British Isles' OSM are Saint
Helier and Saint Peter Port, both in the Channel Islands. Both have
French influences. And just to thumb its nose at us, nearby Alderney has
the town of "St Anne". So I don't think they can be a great example.

Near "St. Louis" (Missouri - abbreviated that way in OSM), OSM has the
towns of "Saint Clair" and "Saint James". In the same area, there's St.
Charles, St. Peters and East St. Louis (IL). In the St. Louis metro
area, there are roughly 4500 ways named "St\. Louis.*" and roughly 3500
ways named "St Louis.*". There are also roughly 3500 ways named "Saint .*"

So this is not a standard well kept.

  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] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi John,

If we want to be able generate mailing addresses from OSM (is that a 
valid use case?), then whatever the city address Canada Post thinks we 
are in needs to be tagged in some fashion.   Google maps and Bing maps 
both think I'm in "Kanata".  OSM thinks I'm in "Kanata North". Both 
are correct, in different ways.


If I we want to do reverse geo coding using OSM data, then the mailing 
address should be represented in some fashion because that's what 
people expect to see.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr says about addr:city: 
/May not be required if boundary=administrative 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative> is 
used correctly. May or may not be a clone of is_in:city 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in:city>=* (in some places 
the city in the address corresponds to the post office that serves the 
area rather than the actual city, if any, in which the building is 
located)! The name of the city as given in *postal addresses* of the 
building/area. /(emphasis added)



BTW, this is one of the reasons I started all these discussions about  
aligning Canada OSM data... I was trying to use OSM to build a map for 
a community group and rather than just doing post-cleanup work on the 
map data in my own private copy, I thought it might be better to see 
what data we could align and make useful for everyone.  I'll only take 
it as far as consensus is achieved.



On 2018-02-19 11:25 AM, john whelan wrote:
So what we are saying is the city field should be filled in not with 
the physical city but with Canada Posts thoughts of the day?


Orleans is different.  It never was a municipality.

Cheerio John

On 19 February 2018 at 11:17, Matthew Darwin <matt...@mdarwin.ca 
<mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>> wrote:


Hi John,

I live in Kanata.  If I type my "  Ottawa" into
the Canada Post lookup tool
(https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/personal/postalcode/fpc.jsf?LOCALE=en
<https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/personal/postalcode/fpc.jsf?LOCALE=en>),
it helpfully corrects me to "Kanata".   Same for old "City of
Nepean" addresses.   Try "1000 Palladium Drive, Kanata, ON"
(Canadian Tire Center).

As far as I know, within the City of Ottawa, everyone's postal
address uses the pre-amalgamted city names while the city hasn't
yet finished de-duplicating street names.   So addr:city should
probably be filled in accordingly.


On 2018-02-19 11:07 AM, john whelan wrote:

I seem to recall from talking to Canada Post that Orleans is
the only location for which that is true.  All of Orleans is
located within Ottawa. So how do you tag it?  It is within the
    City of Ottawa these days.

Thanks John

On 19 February 2018 at 10:44, Matthew Darwin
<matt...@mdarwin.ca <mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>> wrote:

Hi Clifford,

(It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).

Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city
appears to me to be more complex than the situation with
addr:province/addr:country, along the lines of what you are
mentioning. My personal home mailing address cannot be
resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not match
any of the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but
the official post address cannot be resolved from the
boundaries). So I have a feeling that addr:city is going to
be required, at least in some cases.

Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or
addr:country? US/Canada probably have more similarities
than differences, so your input is very welcome.







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

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

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the feedback.  OSM is updated accordingly.

I also changed "City of Prince Edward County" to "Prince Edward" (I 
didn't receive any comments on that one).   "City Of" updates in 
Ontario is now complete (at least until someone adds another one).


Updates to "Town Of" are now in  progress.   If anyone has comments 
about how to handle the following please do speak up:


   3053 Town of the Blue Mountains   => "Blue Mountains" [remove "the"]
 14 Town of Caledon (Bolton)
  2 Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (Stouffville)
  2 Town of Caledon (Sandhill)
  1 Town of Saugeen Shores (Southampton)
  1 Town of Mono (Rosemont)
  1 Town of Huntsville (Port Sydney)
  1 Town of Clarington (Enniskillen)

Following towns, I will be updating "Municipality Of" (after that 
"Township Of").  The list for "Municipality Of" is:


  22881 Municipality of Chatham-Kent
   9906 Municipality of Clarington
   3962 Municipality of West Grey
   3929 Municipality of Grey Highlands
   3815 Municipality of Kincardine
   3690 Municipality of Trent Hills
   3549 Municipality of Leamington
   3543 Municipality of Middlesex Centre
   3293 Municipality of Port Hope
   3284 Municipality of North Grenville
   3192 Municipality of Brockton
   2794 Municipality of Meaford
   2793 Municipality of Highlands East
   2706 Municipality of Arran-Elderslie
   2462 Municipality of Thames Centre
   2439 Municipality of the Nation
   2418 Municipality of Tweed
   2320 Municipality of Southwest Middlesex
   2275 Municipality of Brighton
   2194 Municipality of North Perth
   2145 Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula
   1981 Municipality of Central Elgin
   1634 Municipality of South Bruce
   1501 Municipality Of Greenstone
   1462 Municipality of Marmora and Lake
   1424 Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge
   1374 Municipality of Hastings Highlands
   1265 Municipality of Centre Hastings
   1227 Municipality of West Nipissing
   1197 Municipality of Brooke-Alvinston
   1168 Municipality of Bayham
   1060 Municipality of Whitestone
   1015 Municipality of McDougall
    989 Municipality of French River
    943 Municipality of Wawa
    895 Municipality of Magnetawan
    817 Municipality of Shuniah
    790 Municipality of Lambton Shores
    710 Municipality Of Markstay-warren
    665 Municipality of Neebing
    634 Municipality Of Huron Shores
    460 Municipality of West Elgin
    414 Municipality of Huron Shores
    367 Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich
    293 Municipality Of St.-charles
    281 Municipality of Powassan
    236 Municipality of North Middlesex
    165 Municipality of Killarney
 47 Municipality Of West Nipissing
 46 Municipality Of Charlton And Dack
 23 Municipality Of Wawa
 18 Municipality of Callander
  7 Municipality Of Sioux Lookout
  4 Municipality Of Killarney
  2 Municipality Of French River
  1 Municipality of Brockton;Municipality of South Bruce

On 2018-02-17 02:18 PM, Bill & Kathy Patterson wrote:

I can speak to Maple, living a few km north of it.  The OSM wiki states:
—CLIP—
Use place <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place>=suburb to 
identify a major area in a place 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place>=town 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dtown> or place 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place>=city 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dcity> with a 
distinct and recognised local name and identity. Suburbs may have 
uncertain boundaries, may overlap with other suburbs, and are often 
best mapped using a node.
For areas within a suburb, the tag place 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place>=neighbourhood 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dneighbourhood> will 
usually be used. If necessary, place 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place>=quarter 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dquarter> may be 
used for an area of a large settlement which is smaller than a 
suburb and larger than a neighbourhood.

—END CLIP—
and on that basis I'd say yes, Maple is definitely a suburb of 
Vaughan, as are 1/2 of Thornhill, Concord, Woodbridge, and 
Kleinburg.  Purpleville and Nashville should likely be classified as 
neighbourhoods, and Hope and Burrlington (note double "r") as 
pioneer communities.


16796 Town of Markham, has been a city for a few years.

Bill Patterson

--
*From:* Matthew Darwin <matt...@mdarwin.ca>
*To:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
*Sent:* Saturday, February 17, 2018 11:43 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names in Ontario

The following 2 are not changed, as per my previous comment that I 
will not update the name if it does not exist in NRCan without 
further review here.


1)  3 Ci

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

In my OSM map updates to remove of "City of" and similar prefixes from 
locality names, I will not be expanding any "St", "Ste" or any other 
abbreviations of those names.  If the name (minus the prefix to be 
removed) matches what is in NRCan database, I will remove the prefix; 
if it doesn't, I will bring it back up here for review.


I occasionally get "Saint John, NB" and "St. John's, NL" confused, so 
personally I do not want the city name in Newfoundland expanded to add 
to my confusion.   :-)


What's your favourite locality name in Canada?  I have to go with 
"Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!"


On 2018-02-16 05:56 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
With "street" in a street name, it's clear to most everyone that 
Pine St is an abbreviation and Pine Street is the correct 
unabbreviated Canadian English version. It is not clear to me that 
"Saint Catharines" is the correct unabbreviated version of the 
city's name. In fact it looks incorrect to me.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

To start the cleanup process, the following *Ontario* cities are being 
changed (remove "City of" or "City Of").   Once that is done, I'll 
come back with the next batch to process...


The idea to remove the city name in its entirety will require careful 
consideration to ensure the necessary boundary relations are in place 
and of course more discussion to see if people are comfortable to 
proceed on that kind of activity.


 110707 City of Toronto
  45716 City of Hamilton
  27234 City of London
  25393 City of Brampton
  17251 City of Vaughan
  16929 City of St. Catharines
  16592 City of Kawartha Lakes
  16087 City of Thunder Bay
  14787 City of Niagara Falls
  13966 City of Kingston
  12085 City of Oshawa
  11321 City of Barrie
  10981 City of Burlington
  10347 City of Guelph
   9666 City of Brantford
   9384 City of Sarnia
   9102 City of Windsor
   9044 City Of Sault Ste. Marie
   8263 City of Peterborough
   7819 City of Quinte West
   7593 City of Welland
   6753 City of Pickering
   6608 City of Greater Sudbury
   6375 City Of Greater Sudbury
   6239 City of Belleville
   6165 City of Prince Edward County
   5696 City of Cornwall
   5269 City Of Timmins
   4877 City of Port Colborne
   4208 City of Woodstock
   3971 City of Thorold
   3692 City of St. Thomas
   3603 City of Cambridge
   3529 City of Orillia
   3355 City of Brockville
   3098 City of Owen Sound
   2733 City of Clarence-Rockland
   2377 City Of Pembroke
   1549 City Of Dryden
    871 City of Kenora
    766 City Of Elliot Lake
    544 City of Elliot Lake
    302 City of Waterloo
    241 City of North Bay
 78 City of Kitchener
 47 City of Markham
 18 City of Timmins
  3 City of Vaughan (Maple)
  2 City of Sault Ste. Marie



On 2018-02-12 09:13 PM, Kevin Farrugia wrote:
Bernie is correct.  "City of", "Municipality of", "x County" is a 
legal name that would be referring to the legal entity itself (the 
Government) rather than the place.  The place should just be 
Toronto, Hamilton, Mississauga etc..


The data source these legal names comes from has the legal name as 
it's usually establishing the jurisdiction that contains the road.  
The address ranges are derived from the road system, so it's just 
been copied over.


-Kevin Farrugia
kevinfarru...@gmail.com 

On 12 February 2018 at 21:02, Bernie Connors > wrote:


I see the use of "City of" as indicating the official name of a
municipality as it is defined in legislation. Here in New
Brunswick the Municipalities Act‎ defines the official names of
municipalities. Some opt to use "City of ", "Town of ", etc in
the Municipalities Act and some don't. But when it comes to
names on maps we should be more concerned with toponyms and not
official names. The use of "City of ", "Town of ", etc is very
rare in toponyms. Here is a query on the Canadian Geographic
Names Database searching for the term "of" in the "populated
places" category -

http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search?q=of%5B%5D=985=O



I only see two examples that include "City of ", "Town of ", etc
across the entire country:
City of Brant, ON
Village of Queen Charlotte, BC

Bernie.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea
>
wrote:

I smell a harmonization with admin_level...not that there's
anything wrong with that.
SteveA

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





-- 
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


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

[Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi all,

During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in Canada, it 
was suggested that the addr:city could be removed entirely if the 
appropriate boundaries are defined.   I would hazard to guess (and 
will endeavour to investigate) that the addr:city and the boundaries 
do not always align in Canada (there are ~11300 administrative 
boundaries of some type and there are ~7000 unique addr:city tags)... 
so this will be a much more long term effort.


However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined, so 
removing the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state tags might be a 
more reasonable at this time.  (addr:country is used ~94% less than 
addr:street)


Tags, by number of occurrences:

 167902 addr:country

  33252 addr:state

 179741 addr:province

2950115 addr:city

2942159 addr:street

2934341 addr:housenumber


--
Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Postal Code cleanup

[Matthew Darwin]

Task complete.   The multi-postal codes are tagged on buildings which 
may have more than 1 address.  Local mappers who are familiar with the 
areas should review it.   It looks like in many places imports were 
used which incorrectly parsed the addresses.  Many issues where the 
value started with 2 letters representing the province and then an 
incomplete postal code (aka "AA A#A").


 248803 "A#A #A#"    1455 "A#A"  14 "A#A #A#;A#A #A#"   1 
"A#A #A#;A#A #A#;A#A #A#"


(my initial query was incomplete, that's why the numbers are much bigger now... 
I was querying the postal codes where also there is a contact record)


On 2018-02-07 08:01 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:


Hi all,

Below are the 10 top postal code formats in Canada as seen in 
*addr:postcode*. When I get bored of tidying up phone numbers, I'll 
tackle some postal codes.


I hope we can all agree that "A#A #A#", which is the most popular, 
is the correct format that should be used.  The ones that just have 
'A#A' (the "Forward Sortation Area") I will leave as well.   There 
are more than 60 unique formats in use today and funny enough I 
see phone numbers in the postal code field arrh!


I am open to comments/suggestion on this, as always.

  20271 'A#A #A#'
   1454 'A#A#A#'
 96 'a#a#a#'
 37 'A#A #A# '
 29 'a#a #a#'
 28 'A#A'
 24 'A#A #a#'
 23 'AA A#A #A#'
 17 'A#A-#A#'
 12 'A#A #A#'




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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

Kevin thanks for the history lesson.  As I mentioned on other threads, 
I'm relatively new here, so I am missing the context, so I appreciate 
you filling it in.


Looking at the 100 used "Town/City/Municipality of " names, they seem 
to be entirely in Ontario.  So perhaps this is mostly an Ontario 
discussion to start.


Here is the full list of city:suburb values as context to the 
discussion.  It appears mainly used in the Montreal area:


 89 Le Plateau-Mont-Royal 38 Côte-des-Neiges–NDG 37 
Rosemont-Petite-Patrie 36 Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve 34 
Saint-Laurent 25 Bramalea 24 Dollard-des-Ormeaux 22 
Outremont 21 Villeray-Saint-Michel-PE 20 
Ahuntsic-Cartierville 17 Saint-Leonard 16 Pointe-Claire 12 
Westmount 12 Dorval 11 Mont-Royal 11 
LÎle-Bizard-Sainte-Geneviève  8 Côte Saint-Luc  7 
RDP-Pointe-Aux-Trembles  6 Verdun  6 
Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue  6 Pointe Claire  6 Le Sud Ouest  
6 LaSalle  4 Lachine  4 Erindale  4 Bolton  3 
Montréal-Nord  3 Montreal-Est  3 Anjou  2 Wesmount  2 
Kirkland  2 Hampstead  1 Unionville  1 Scarborough  1 
Pierrefonds-Roxboro  1 North York  1 Le-Sud-Ouest  1 
Gastown  1 Etobicoke  1 Downtown Dartmouth  1 Delta  1 
Beauport  1 Beaconsfield  1 Alton



On 2018-02-12 06:02 PM, Kevin Farrugia wrote:

Hi Matthew,

Not having the "City of" or "Town of" would be preferred - the 
reason those are there is that the CanVec data that was imported 
uses administrative names in the data.


When people search or say an address out loud they would use "123 
Yonge St, Toronto" not "123 Yonge St, City of Toronto".  It's 
something that I think was overlooked when the data was imported and 
has annoyed the hell out of me when I see it...


As for examples like "North York, Toronto" - some people still use 
the pre-amalgamation borough names for the suburbs that were annexed 
into the City of Toronto.  Sometimes it's for a very good purpose - 
there are multiple King, Queen, Main, etc. streets in the current 
city.  In the cases you found, since there are so few, i would 
suggest the former city names be moved to the city:suburb tag and 
Toronto stays in the addr:city tag?




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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

On 2018-02-12 06:05 PM, Stewart Russell wrote:
On Feb 12, 2018 17:51, "Matthew Darwin" <matt...@mdarwin.ca 
<mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>> wrote:


Hi,

I am now reviewing the *addr**:city* tag. Seems we are not very
consistent how we use it. For example, Toronto:

 110707 City of Toronto    9603 Toronto


With my minimalist mapping hat on (it's invisible), if a 
municipality has a boundary defined, we absolutely don't need 
addr:city (or province or country) in address points.




This is the same logic of why the addr:city=Ottawa tags are few and 
far between.


I'm happy to have the discussion about removing redundant tags.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi,

I am now reviewing the *addr**:city* tag.   Seems we are not very 
consistent how we use it.  For example, Toronto:


 110707 City of Toronto    9603 Toronto   4 North York, Toronto 
  2 Toronto, ON   2 toronto   1 York, Toronto   1 
Torontoitalian   1 Toronto;City of Toronto   1 Toronto


Which is correct?  "*City of **Toronto*" or "*Toronto*"?   I would 
think "Toronto"???   Why do people pick one over the other?


There are more than 7000 unique names in Canada.  Below are the top 
50.  Ottawa is not on the top of the list because there was a local 
decision to not include the addr:city tag during address addition as 
there there are many different "city" names since almagamation. (The 
official Canada Post address still has the old municipality name prior 
to amalgamation while the City of Ottawa works through de-duplicating 
street names).


110707 City of Toronto 100066 Gatineau 82606 Montréal 79191 Surrey 
71932 Edmonton 51096 Québec 45716 City of Hamilton 37232 Mississauga 
35763 Laval 32029 Dartmouth 30969 Kamloops 27234 City of London 25393 
City of Brampton 22881 Municipality of Chatham-Kent 18534 Saguenay 
17921 Lévis 17251 City of Vaughan 16929 City of St. Catharines 16796 
Town of Markham 16592 City of Kawartha Lakes 16403 Trois-Rivières 
16086 City of Thunder Bay 15788 Oakville 15335 Sherbrooke 14787 City 
of Niagara Falls 14338 Norfolk County 13966 City of Kingston 13939 
Fredericton 12085 City of Oshawa 11966 Saanich 11950 Calgary 11382 
Terrebonne 11332 Richmond Hill 11321 City of Barrie 11080 Town of Fort 
Erie 10986 Cole Harbour 10981 City of Burlington 10641 Town of Whitby 
10635 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu 10455 Drummondville 10347 City of 
Guelph 9906 Municipality of Clarington 9666 City of Brantford 9603 
Toronto 9487 Shawinigan 9384 City of Sarnia 9380 Red Deer 9102 City of 
Windsor 9044 City Of Sault Ste. Marie 8466 Sudbury



--
Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

Phone number tidy-up is now complete, per the original discussion.  I 
think we still could clean up this list further I welcome any 
discussion in that regard.  Any phone numbers using letters instead of 
numbers remain with letters.


The top 10 formats used in Canada are:

  20640 phone"+#-###-###-
   4457 phone"+# ###-###-
   3749 phone"+# ### ### 
   2630 phone"+# ### ###-
   1293 fax"+#-###-###-
    940 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
    158 contact:fax"+#-###-###-
    118 phone:tollfree"+#-###-###-
    110 phone"###-
 40 phone"+#-###-###-####;+#-###-###-

On 2018-02-07 06:46 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:


A further update on this work:

  * I found more yet bizarre phone-related tags "phone:1",
"telephone" and the like.  These have all been tidied.  My
osmfilter now looks like this:    --keep="contact:*=* or
phone*=* or Phone*=* or alt_phone=* or fax*=* or tty*=*"
Additional suggestions for something to search on are welcome so
I get all phone numbers.
  * I found there were some formats used very regionally eg. 
Edmonton Schools used one format consistently and Ottawa Schools
used a different format consistently.
  * The canada.poly filter I have been using includes Saint Pierre
and Miquelon (which does not use North American dialing plan),
as well as a few US entries (especially relations which go near
the border). If anyone knows of a canada.poly that is tighter,
can you point me in the direction?  I am generally leaving
non-Canadian entries alone, but they do count in the stats below.
  * There are now 67 unique tag/phone number format combinations
(down from 400+ originally) when using   egrep -i
'k="[a-z:]*(phone|fax|tty)[a-z:]*" ' $OSMFILENAME | cut -d\"
-f2,4 | sed -e 's/[0-9]/#/g' | sed -e 's/[A-Z]/A/g' | sed -e
's/([a-zA-Z -]*)/(...)/g' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | wc -l
  * The bulk of the work remaining now is to reformat the big groups
of numbers that do not begin with "+1". I will make changes by
area code to limit the number of canada-wide changesets.


As always, comments welcome.

Here is the new "top 20"as of ~10am ET today:

  12555 phone"+#-###-###-
   4453 phone"+# ###-###-
   4060 phone"###-###-
   3749 phone"+# ### ### 
   2624 phone"+# ### ###-
   2239 phone"(###) ###-
   1292 fax"+#-###-###-
   1032 phone"##
    941 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
    323 phone"+###
    322 phone"+# ### ###
    158 contact:fax"+#-###-###-
    117 phone:tollfree"+#-###-###-
    109 phone"###-
 39 phone"+#-###-###-;+#-###-###-
 25 phone"+#-###-###-
 23 phone"+#-###-###-x###
 17 phone"+# (###) ###-
 14 phone"+#-###-###-x
  9 phone"+#-###-###-x#


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

[Talk-ca] Postal Code cleanup

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi all,

Below are the 10 top postal code formats in Canada as seen in 
*addr:postcode*. When I get bored of tidying up phone numbers, I'll 
tackle some postal codes.


I hope we can all agree that "A#A #A#", which is the most popular, is 
the correct format that should be used.  The ones that just have 'A#A' 
(the "Forward Sortation Area") I will leave as well.   There are more 
than 60 unique formats in use today and funny enough I see phone 
numbers in the postal code field arrh!


I am open to comments/suggestion on this, as always.

  20271 'A#A #A#'
   1454 'A#A#A#'
 96 'a#a#a#'
 37 'A#A #A# '
 29 'a#a #a#'
 28 'A#A'
 24 'A#A #a#'
 23 'AA A#A #A#'
 17 'A#A-#A#'
 12 'A#A #A#'

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

A further update on this work:

 * I found more yet bizarre phone-related tags "phone:1", "telephone"
   and the like.  These have all been tidied.  My osmfilter now looks
   like this:    --keep="contact:*=* or phone*=* or Phone*=* or
   alt_phone=* or fax*=* or tty*=*"  Additional suggestions for
   something to search on are welcome so I get all phone numbers.
 * I found there were some formats used very regionally eg. Edmonton
   Schools used one format consistently and Ottawa Schools used a
   different format consistently.
 * The canada.poly filter I have been using includes Saint Pierre and
   Miquelon (which does not use North American dialing plan), as well
   as a few US entries (especially relations which go near the
   border). If anyone knows of a canada.poly that is tighter, can you
   point me in the direction?  I am generally leaving non-Canadian
   entries alone, but they do count in the stats below.
 * There are now 67 unique tag/phone number format combinations (down
   from 400+ originally) when using   egrep -i
   'k="[a-z:]*(phone|fax|tty)[a-z:]*" ' $OSMFILENAME | cut -d\" -f2,4
   | sed -e 's/[0-9]/#/g' | sed -e 's/[A-Z]/A/g' | sed -e 's/([a-zA-Z
   -]*)/(...)/g' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | wc -l
 * The bulk of the work remaining now is to reformat the big groups
   of numbers that do not begin with "+1".  I will make changes by
   area code to limit the number of canada-wide changesets.


As always, comments welcome.

Here is the new "top 20"as of ~10am ET today:

  12555 phone"+#-###-###-
   4453 phone"+# ###-###-
   4060 phone"###-###-
   3749 phone"+# ### ### 
   2624 phone"+# ### ###-
   2239 phone"(###) ###-
   1292 fax"+#-###-###-
   1032 phone"##
    941 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
    323 phone"+###
    322 phone"+# ### ###
    158 contact:fax"+#-###-###-
    117 phone:tollfree"+#-###-###-
    109 phone"###-
 39 phone"+#-###-###-;+#-###-###-
 25 phone"+#-###-###-
 23 phone"+#-###-###-x###
 17 phone"+# (###) ###-####
     14 phone"+#-###-###-x
  9 phone"+#-###-###-x#



On 2018-02-04 11:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:37 PM, Matthew Darwin <matt...@mdarwin.ca> wrote:

Just an update on this activity.

Again, nice work!


Here are the top 20 tags as of ~4pm ET Sunday:

   10669 phone"+#-###-###-
4392 phone"+# ###-###-
4206 phone"###-###-
2970 phone"+# ### ### 
2540 phone"+# ### ###-
2451 phone"(###) ###-
1076 phone"##
 659 phone"+# ### ###
 547 fax"+#-###-###-
 522 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
 516 phone"+###
 456 phone"#-###-###-
 446 phone"### ### 
 378 fax"+# ###-###-
 283 contact:phone"### ###-
 260 phone"+# (###) ###-
 200 fax"+###
 186 phone"### ###-
 170 phone"(###)###-
 162 fax"+# ### ###-

I'd appreciate others to chime in about this, but it seems where dashes and space 
characters overlap (are the only difference in format), those can be conflated together.  
I'm not sure whether dash or space ends up as "the winner," but this should 
reduce the number of categories.

As you consider additional conflations, you may be able to do this again and 
again, getting it down to a fairly small number of formats.  I urge additional 
feedback (here would be good) before additional conflations, but (I keep saying 
it):  nice work.

SteveA


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

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

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi John,

I think this approach has merit.

Probably it would work if we take a similar approach to what 
BikeOttawa is doing with OSM data, they wanted a "Level Of Traffic 
Stress" map.  To that they defined the set of interesting tags, 
started collecting data, then draw a map.  Now people are looking at 
the map and pointing out errors in map data (which there are lots) or 
things that need improving in the algorithm (which probably there are 
also lots).  [The tagging scheme was previously discussed on this list]


So if someone had a building-related use case they were deriving from 
OSM data, then local mappers could check how the buildings in their 
area align to whatever is that goal.  Last week I started looking a 
building heights... I was using https://osmbuildings.org/ to look at 
the areas I know and then look for buildings that seem to be the wrong 
height then going out to count the windows (vertically) to get the 
number of levels. It will make the map look better. However, it would 
be better if there was a more defined project than just looking at the 
map.


References:
The buildings I changed: 
https://osmbuildings.org/?lat=45.31336=-75.91377=18.4=30
The Bike Ottawa test stress map: 
http://mobiletest.beyond2020.com/bikemap/ (give it a few seconds to 
load the overlay)


On 2018-02-07 11:44 AM, john whelan wrote:
Unfortunately having a valid license is not the whole story.  In 
Montreal we appear to have a valid license we can import from and 
they have building data on their open data portal.  Unfortunately 
technically the quality and ease of use appears to be lower than 
Ottawa's.


I suspect that we need to see how the NRC LiDAR data unfolds and my 
gossip says there is work being done there on deep learning that may 
well be useful.


I think what we need at the moment is something to keep the project 
moving forward and I suspect that will be adding tags to existing 
buildings.  On the schools front some background as to the value of 
the stats from tagging the buildings might be worth its weight in gold.


Cheerio John

On 7 February 2018 at 09:42, Alasia, Alessandro (STATCAN) 
> 
wrote:


Dear all,
It is fantastic to see all these exchanges about BC2020i! There
are a lot of great ideas and improvements being made. I cannot
follow up on each point, though I wanted to update you regarding
one area of specific relevance: the attempt to find a solution
to the licensing issue for building related datasets. I believe
this is one area where my team can contribute to support the
BC2020i.
With my team, I am looking into the feasibility of compiling all
available municipal open data files into one single file and
then releasing this single file under one common license,
specifically the open data licence of the Canadian federal
government. This would, hopefully, solve the license
compatibility issue. We are still exploring this possibility but
are moderately optimistic.
So far we started with the "easy" task: compiling all the known
files – a special thanks to those who contributed to the tables
on the BC2020i wiki page! With that and other OD sources, we
compiled an "OpenAddressRepository" file of nearly 11 million
records (georeferenced) and an "OpenBuildingRepository" file of
nearly 3.2 million polygons (still in progress). Preliminary
analysis suggests that the coverage and geocoding are very
promising. More importantly, given that the files all originate
from official municipal sources, there should be no reason to
doubt the quality of the data.
The next step, for us, is to look at the process required to
release these files with a GoC open data license. We do not yet
have a clear timeline for release, but if this idea is possible,
we should almost certainly make it before the timelines that
were discussed on Talk-ca for vetting each and all individual
municipal open data licenses  - 2080s or 2030s if I recall
correctly :-)
We believe this solution/approach, if successful, puts an end to
the issue of license compatibility (at least for the files found
thus far) and greatly facilitates the use of these open data by
the general public as well as the private and public sector.
Furthermore, and more importantly for BC2020i, this solution
paves the way for the many local OSM groups to import these open
data as they see fit. As well, once the large national level
files are released, we might be able to collaborate with local
groups and provide more manageable partitions of the larger files.
Of course, this approach will not necessarily solve the license
compatibility issue for all types of municipal files. Thus,
needless to say, anybody is obviously free to pursue submitting
individual municipal OD licenses to the License Working Group of
OSM. 

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

[Matthew Darwin]

James,

Good point about the quality and attributes of the data will 
definitely not be consistent between municipalities. As long as the 
source is identifiable, then the face it is one "file" or many, would 
be an implementation detail.  IMO.


On 2018-02-07 09:46 AM, James wrote:
why does it have to be one file? Cant it be individual cities that 
contribute under a say repository under the federal goverment with 
the federal license? Evaluating the quality of the data is also part 
of the process and as we've found out there are some cities that do 
it better than others when it comes to data quality.


On Feb 7, 2018 9:42 AM, "Alasia, Alessandro (STATCAN)" 
> 
wrote:


Dear all,

It is fantastic to see all these exchanges about BC2020i! There
are a lot of great ideas and improvements being made. I cannot
follow up on each point, though I wanted to update you regarding
one area of specific relevance: the attempt to find a solution
to the licensing issue for building related datasets. I believe
this is one area where my team can contribute to support the
BC2020i.




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

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi all,

So we get a sense of what phone number formats people are using, I 
pulled all the *phone* and *contact:phone *tags from OSM in Canada.  
The top 10 formats used are:


   8819 phone"+#-###-###-
   4321 phone"###-###-
   4298 phone"+# ###-###-
   3012 phone"+# ### ### 
   2558 phone"+# ### ###-
   2471 phone"(###) ###-
   1087 phone"##
    946 phone"+#-
    680 phone"+# ### ###
    512 phone"+###

So one of the recommended formats is the top one in use.  But there 
are 4 formats in high use which have the leading "+1", but have 
different variants of spaces/hyphens:


   8819 phone"+#-###-###-
   4298 phone"+# ###-###-
   3012 phone"+# ### ### 
   2558 phone"+# ### ###-

Other facts:

 * There are ~400 unique formats (when changing all digits to #) of
   phone and contact:phone
 * There are additionally ~45 phone numbers that use letters instead
   of digits (eg 1-555-GOT-BEER)
 * ";" separator is used occasionally to indicate multiple phone
   numbers.  " ", "," and "/" are also used.
 * There are random comments in the phone number field (not sure
   where these really should be?)
 * Extensions are represented generally by "x" or "ext" or "ext."
 * There are less than 1000 phone numbers using contact:phone instead
   of phone, using ~40 unique formats
 * I did not analyze phone_1 or fax or any other tags.

I will continue to cleanup phone numbers across the country which are 
missing the leading +1 and or are not one of the 4 common formats 
listed above.  My thought is that


 * I will leave the phone numbers of 1-555-GOT-BEER type.
 * I will use ";" as multiple number separator.
 * I will use "x" for extension.
 * And I will be happy to cleanup the wonky ones with lots of text in
   them if there is a direction of where this should move to. 
   Example for a radio station: "office (###) ###-; on-air studio
   (###) ###-"


Feedback welcome.



On 2018-01-28 08:22 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:

Hi all,

Is there a preferred phone number format we use in Canada?

I noticed a bunch of phone numbers in Ottawa don't follow the 
recommendations in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone, 
namely:


  * phone=/number/ where the /number/ should be in international
(ITU-T E.164 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.164>) format
  o phone=+  , following
the ITU-T E.123 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.123> and the
DIN 5008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/de:DIN_5008> pattern
  o (phone=+--, following
the RFC 3966/NANP <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NANP> pattern)

Is there a preference which of these formats is used?   Can anyone 
run a query and see which is more popular in the country?


The reason I'm asking is that since a bunch of phone numbers leave 
off the +1 (and have other errors), I want to align them to the 
recommended format.   I am wondering if I should have them in the 
format of "+1 999 555 1234" or "+1-999-555-1234". If there is no 
existing preference adopted in OSM Canada, I will use the latter to 
cleanup the non-compliant phone numbers.


Comments?

I am also assuming we prefer "phone" over "contact:phone" as per 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact




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

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

[Matthew Darwin]

Ok, just I had to re-write more than just that one section to make it 
coherent.   Hopefully the page has a bit more logical structure now.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020

Comments and edits welcome!


On 2018-01-29 09:26 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:


I will re-write the "project management" section of the wiki page to 
align with this discussion.


On 2018-01-29 09:17 PM, john whelan wrote:
and I think I agree with Pierre the best approach would be to do it 
a step at a time using experienced local resources.


We do need to engage with high schools and the Universities but it 
is difficult with the resources available.  There is some material 
available https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education but it 
would need reviewing to see if it is relevant to what is required.


We were exceptionally fortunate in Ottawa with the pilot and the 
resources we had available but even there I wasn't certain we would 
be able to pull it off.


Cheerio John


2018-01-29 21:11 GMT-05:00 Matthew Darwin <matt...@mdarwin.ca 
<mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>>:


+1

Unless someone has lots of $$$ to throw at OSM work (which
could then fund full time coordinators, trainers, lawyers,
etc), the only way I see to coordinate is to approach it like
how OSM in Canada was build up to now... distributed model with
local groups doing what makes sense for their area.   There is,
of course, no way to map all buildings in Canada by 2020 this
way.  Still it is good to set aspirational goals...

On 2018-01-29 08:57 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:


Il faut une part de réalisme. Pour bien coordonner, il ne
suffit pas de créer une tâche et d'inviter à participer. Nous
ne sommes pas une communauté structurée au niveau national. 
Je comprends que diverses universités s'intéressent au projet
OSM et aimeraient initier leurs étudiants à ce projet. La
meilleure solution je pense c'est de se mettre en contact avec
la communauté OSM locale et s'assurer de bien encadrer la
formation et les premiers jours de participation à OSM.

Les contributeurs sont davantage actifs dans leurs communautés
locales ou selon leur divers intérêts liés à leur travail ou
loisir. Personne n'est prêt à s'engager à coordonner un tel
projet au niveau national.



___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
<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] using image recognition to create building foot prints.

[Matthew Darwin]

I will re-write the "project management" section of the wiki page to 
align with this discussion.


On 2018-01-29 09:17 PM, john whelan wrote:
and I think I agree with Pierre the best approach would be to do it 
a step at a time using experienced local resources.


We do need to engage with high schools and the Universities but it 
is difficult with the resources available.  There is some material 
available https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education but it would 
need reviewing to see if it is relevant to what is required.


We were exceptionally fortunate in Ottawa with the pilot and the 
resources we had available but even there I wasn't certain we would 
be able to pull it off.


Cheerio John


2018-01-29 21:11 GMT-05:00 Matthew Darwin <matt...@mdarwin.ca 
<mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>>:


+1

Unless someone has lots of $$$ to throw at OSM work (which could
then fund full time coordinators, trainers, lawyers, etc), the
only way I see to coordinate is to approach it like how OSM in
Canada was build up to now... distributed model with local
groups doing what makes sense for their area.   There is, of
course, no way to map all buildings in Canada by 2020 this way.
Still it is good to set aspirational goals...

On 2018-01-29 08:57 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:


Il faut une part de réalisme. Pour bien coordonner, il ne
suffit pas de créer une tâche et d'inviter à participer. Nous
ne sommes pas une communauté structurée au niveau national.  Je
comprends que diverses universités s'intéressent au projet OSM
et aimeraient initier leurs étudiants à ce projet. La meilleure
solution je pense c'est de se mettre en contact avec la
communauté OSM locale et s'assurer de bien encadrer la
formation et les premiers jours de participation à OSM.

Les contributeurs sont davantage actifs dans leurs communautés
locales ou selon leur divers intérêts liés à leur travail ou
loisir. Personne n'est prêt à s'engager à coordonner un tel
projet au niveau national.



___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
<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] using image recognition to create building foot prints.

[Matthew Darwin]

+1

Unless someone has lots of $$$ to throw at OSM work (which could then 
fund full time coordinators, trainers, lawyers, etc), the only way I 
see to coordinate is to approach it like how OSM in Canada was build 
up to now... distributed model with local groups doing what makes 
sense for their area.   There is, of course, no way to map all 
buildings in Canada by 2020 this way.  Still it is good to set 
aspirational goals...


On 2018-01-29 08:57 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:


Il faut une part de réalisme. Pour bien coordonner, il ne suffit pas 
de créer une tâche et d'inviter à participer. Nous ne sommes pas une 
communauté structurée au niveau national.  Je comprends que diverses 
universités s'intéressent au projet OSM et aimeraient initier leurs 
étudiants à ce projet. La meilleure solution je pense c'est de se 
mettre en contact avec la communauté OSM locale et s'assurer de bien 
encadrer la formation et les premiers jours de participation à OSM.


Les contributeurs sont davantage actifs dans leurs communautés 
locales ou selon leur divers intérêts liés à leur travail ou loisir. 
Personne n'est prêt à s'engager à coordonner un tel projet au niveau 
national.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 project

[Matthew Darwin]

I think we can politely re-factor out much stuff.  :-)   Now that we 
seem to have more folks looking into things, I am a bit more motivated 
to spend time on it.


Tech writer type folks would be great to have.


Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2018-01-28 09:21 PM, john whelan wrote:

I've added an introduction which sums it up.

If I'm polite about it there is material in the wiki which suggest 
bringing building footprints using automated tools such as image 
scanners and imports are the way forward.  Scanning hasn't been 
accepted by OSM and imports have their own set of issuse.  If I'm 
not polite about it there is much that needs to be stripped out.


The text could do with being rewritten.  It appears to me to be long 
winded and aspires to many things but seems short on practicalities.


Do we have any technical writers who could look it over?


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

Just FYI, I am not doing an automated edit.  One at a time in JOSM.

On 2018-01-28 10:23 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:

On 2018-01-28 08:22 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:

I am wondering if I should have them in the format of "+1 999
555 1234" or "+1-999-555-1234".    If there is no existing preference
adopted in OSM Canada, I will use the latter to cleanup the
non-compliant phone numbers.

Comments?

Please use the ITU standard: it's international, and so are we. You
never know what country an OSM user will be coming from.

The great advantage to having the +1 in a number is that Canadian cell
phones won't give you the stupid "This is a long distance call …" spiel
if you include it.

Thanks for looking at this - but as with any automated edit, please take
care.

  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] Fwd: Re: Building Canada 2020 (BC2020i) - update Dec 20, 2017

[Matthew Darwin]

Forward from a very long distribution list:


Hi J,

So you are not aware of any Indigenous communities engaged with OSM 
anywhere in Canada? It would be great if OSM could be introduced to 
Indigenous community members so they can help define a direction.  
Since you have contacts, can you help doing introductions?  I am 
assuming you are part of the OSM community already?   How would you 
propose creating a working group?


Also can we move this discussion to the OSM Canada mailing list?  
There is an active discussion on the building initiative there.  Maybe 
others know about Indigenous activities already?



On 2018-01-26 02:53 PM, J. Hackett wrote:


Hi everyone,

I brought up a few issues surrounding Indigenous engagement at the 
meeting in July.


There still remains no engagement with Indigenous communities 
whatsoever. It is pertinent that if you want to involve the 
Indigenous demographic that an Indigenous Working Group be 
established to develop, plan, and engage with communities in the 
spirit of truth and reconciliqtion, especially in light of the 
recent TRC.


The 2018 Indigenous Mapping Workshop will be hosted in Montreal. It 
might provide a good venue to truly get the conversation/movement 
going forward.


Our tech partners, Google, Esri Canada, and Mapbox, are working with 
us to develop geospatial capacity building within communities; 
therefore, it could be a good opportunity to bridge efforts with the 
100+ communities that will attend the event.


Feel free to reach out to me if there is interest in any partnership 
with our programming in Montreal, QC.


Thanks!


On Fri, Jan 26, 2018, 14:04 Jonathan Brown, <jonab...@gmail.com 
<mailto:jonab...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I’m a newbie to the wiki and OSM mapathon process. I’m
interested in connecting the open data to the OSM and wiki
process that can be used by K-12 and postsecondary students to
support municipal and regional planning and implementation of
sustainable development goals. Alessandro pointed to the Philly
Fresh Food Mapper as a good example of using OSM to address the
challenge of food security at the local level:
https://www.geovista.psu.edu/phillyfood/

The question is how to sustain these projects once the students
have graduated. I have cced Steve Quinn who provided the GIS/OSM
expertise for that crowdsourcing/citizen science project. He is
still active in organizing mapathon events on Twitter:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SterlingGIS

I have been asked for simple guides that can be used be teachers
that they can incorporate into their lesson plans and that align
with the strategic goals of the K-12 education system they work
within. It would be very helpful if the education wiki included
posters that could be shared with principals, teachers and
community NGO agencies partnering on an event that uses the
BC2020i framework.

Here is an example of how a working team at Brock University put
together resources for a high school data management
prerequisite course:
https://brocku.ca/cmt/mdm4u/asprojects/index.html. I noticed
that the working group did a call out to Joel Yan, Statistics
Canada, for the work he did on making Canadian data available;
and to Stephen Brown, Professor of Statistics at Waterloo, for
his suggestions on restructuring each activity. Professor Andrew
Skelton has taken it one step further by including spatial
analysis with his MDM4U Open Data project in collaboration with
his GIS colleagues: https://mathstat.uoguelph.ca/outreach/opendata

It would be good to see how Josée-Anne Langlois work in the
north with open source mapping tools like GGIS and OSM (see
below) could be combined with open data from the provincial and
federal open data catalogues to create a community profile that
is accessible and engaging for community partners.

Jonathan

*From: *Mikel Maron <mailto:mi...@mapbox.com>
*Sent: *Friday, January 26, 2018 10:37 AM
*To: *Matthew Darwin <mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>
*Cc: *Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>;
Alasia, Alessandro (STATCAN)
<mailto:alessandro.ala...@canada.ca>; James
<mailto:james2...@gmail.com>; rps...@gmail.com
<mailto:rps...@gmail.com>; jeffrey.hack...@thefirelightgroup.com
<mailto:jeffrey.hack...@thefirelightgroup.com>;
m...@openconcept.ca <mailto:m...@openconcept.ca>;
mojgan.jad...@gmail.com <mailto:mojgan.jad...@gmail.com>; Bacon,
Scott (STATCAN) <mailto:scott.ba...@canada.ca>;
aaron.ko...@cra-arc.gc.ca <mailto:aaron.ko...@cra-arc.gc.ca>;
tsitsi.gad...@ontario.ca <mailto:tsitsi.gad...@ontario.ca>;
roy.wise...@outlook.com <mailto:roy.wise...@outlook.com>;
Tweedy, Scott (NRCan/RNCan) <mailto:scott.twe...@canada.ca>;
tyler.radf..

[Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi all,

Is there a preferred phone number format we use in Canada?

I noticed a bunch of phone numbers in Ottawa don't follow the 
recommendations in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone, namely:


 * phone=/number/ where the /number/ should be in international
   (ITU-T E.164 ) format
 o phone=+  , following
   the ITU-T E.123  and the
   DIN 5008  pattern
 o (phone=+--, following
   the RFC 3966/NANP  pattern)

Is there a preference which of these formats is used?   Can anyone run 
a query and see which is more popular in the country?


The reason I'm asking is that since a bunch of phone numbers leave off 
the +1 (and have other errors), I want to align them to the 
recommended format.   I am wondering if I should have them in the 
format of "+1 999 555 1234" or "+1-999-555-1234".    If there is no 
existing preference adopted in OSM Canada, I will use the latter to 
cleanup the non-compliant phone numbers.


Comments?

I am also assuming we prefer "phone" over "contact:phone" as per 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact


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

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 project

[Matthew Darwin]

Inline

On 2018-01-28 07:38 PM, john whelan wrote:

We have lots of people talking about this.


Yay!

We have a wiki page somewhere that covers some ground.  Could 
someone remind me of the address?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020

needs lots of improvements.  I started.  I see Steve A did a bunch as 
well.




Do we have anyone willing to project manage this? It is a very big 
project with lots of aspects and complications to it.


I have not heard of any. I am willing to help some, but it really 
needs to be a full-time person (or bunch of people to make it to full 
time).




Do we have a list of attributes that should be added to buildings? 
If they aren't on the wiki then I think they should be.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020#The_data_being_mapped

Although I think the list is impractical... how to get all the 
attributes listed?


I am aware of public wif, levels, use ie commercial, residential. 
There are some tiles set up somewhere for mapping and validation.


Could we have a pointer to them please if they aren't on the wiki 
already.


We have interest from schools and universities do we have any 
material that could be used for them?


Do we have a "hello to help with this project please use Bing 
imagery with JOSM building_tool plugin on the following tiles.  If 
you use iD please be very careful and map the building outlines 
exactly."


and "this is how you add a tag?"

Needs to be added.  The folks doing Ottawa buildings recently probably 
have the best experiences to provide guidence to newbies. Also 
probably should be a template for the tasking manager to point at.  
(For all the building related tasks).


If the Ottawa/Gatineau experience teaches us anything, I suspect that 
doing buildings is going to be a multi-step process per 
municipality/region/province.   Import stuff, manually map stuff, add 
more tags, whatever...  ie going from zero buildings to "perfect" 
buildings in one shot is not reasonable.



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Indigenous communities - Building Canada 2020 (BC2020i) - update Dec 20, 2017

[Matthew Darwin]

Forward from a very long distribution list:


Hi J,

So you are not aware of any Indigenous communities engaged with OSM 
anywhere in Canada? It would be great if OSM could be introduced to 
Indigenous community members so they can help define a direction. 
Since you have contacts, can you help doing introductions?  I am 
assuming you are part of the OSM community already?   How would you 
propose creating a working group?


Also can we move this discussion to the OSM Canada mailing list?  
There is an active discussion on the building initiative there.  Maybe 
others know about Indigenous activities already?



On 2018-01-26 02:53 PM, J. Hackett wrote:


Hi everyone,

I brought up a few issues surrounding Indigenous engagement at the 
meeting in July.


There still remains no engagement with Indigenous communities 
whatsoever. It is pertinent that if you want to involve the 
Indigenous demographic that an Indigenous Working Group be 
established to develop, plan, and engage with communities in the 
spirit of truth and reconciliqtion, especially in light of the 
recent TRC.


The 2018 Indigenous Mapping Workshop will be hosted in Montreal. It 
might provide a good venue to truly get the conversation/movement 
going forward.


Our tech partners, Google, Esri Canada, and Mapbox, are working with 
us to develop geospatial capacity building within communities; 
therefore, it could be a good opportunity to bridge efforts with the 
100+ communities that will attend the event.


Feel free to reach out to me if there is interest in any partnership 
with our programming in Montreal, QC.


Thanks!




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

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

[Matthew Darwin]

Great, seems like we have a list of 3 ok ones:

Ottawa (approved license)

Gatineau + Montreal (explicit approval provided)



@James, do we have documentation as to where approval was given? Would 
be good to have this info on the wiki.



Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2018-01-28 05:59 PM, James wrote:

LWG blog post about CC-BY

https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

as long as you have explicit permission to add data from city. It 
become compatible.
I used "may" as in "should remain on the list because explicit 
permission was already obtained."


On Jan 28, 2018 5:53 PM, "OSM Volunteer stevea" 
<stevea...@softworkers.com <mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com>> wrote:


On Jan 28, 2018, at 2:39 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com
<mailto:james2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> CC Attribution is compatible with explicit permission, so
Gatineau and Montreal may remain on the list.

Oh, how I sometimes dislike the word "may!"

I know, I know, our good talk-ca dialog intends to help wider
understanding and consensus.  This can be challenging, lengthy,
repeat-oriented / loquacious and seem like it runs in circles! 
It gets better.

James, I hereby ask you to change status from red to green once
you know.  Perhaps also undo the strikeout type (delete the
 brackets in the markup language) in Contributors for those
two cities, too (updating the one or two lines of text it takes
to do that).  That goes for anybody posting here and/or reading
this.

To all, wiki what you know, please!  Though, sometimes,
conversations here, or in email, or "in the map" or... are more
appropriate.

I'm saying "wiki when wiki is right."

SteveA




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


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

Re: [Talk-ca] building imports (was Re: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 10)

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Steve,

I'm all for using the wiki, just want to consider the maintenance 
effort of keeping the tasking manager in sync with the wiki.  If 
someone wants to do that, so much the better!   Wikis can get stale 
quickly without someone(s) to actively look at doing updates, like 
you're doing.


Keep up the great work.

On 2018-01-25 11:51 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

There are many more tasks on the task manager related to buildings if you are 
so inclined to add them.   Is that the best way to go? or people can check the 
task manager for projects in their area of interest?   (new tasks can be easily 
added to the task manager... just ask!)

I sort of feel a need to just shut the heck up and let others post "communications 
about the WikiProject" (like OSM-TM links) TO the WikiProject (wiki).

That is all.  Keep the communication up and in the wiki rather than in "walled gardens" of 
"happen to know somebody" or "walled garden."

It's OSM, after all.  We use other forms of communication, but on a national 
project of scope this large, we can (and should and do) use the wiki.

Zippin' it closed for a while,
SteveA
California


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

Re: [Talk-ca] building imports (was Re: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 10)

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Steve,

There are many more tasks on the task manager related to buildings if 
you are so inclined to add them.   Is that the best way to go? or 
people can check the task manager for projects in their area of 
interest?   (new tasks can be easily added to the task manager... just 
ask!)


On 2018-01-25 11:39 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Darwin <matt...@mdarwin.ca> wrote:

I should mention that there are others in Ottawa working on completing the 
buildings.  The City import only had urban buildings.  Since the city of Ottawa 
is the largest rural city in Canada, so much work still to do.  See 
http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/114 and http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/100

See, now, like that:  I put these links into 
WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020.  (Where they belong, he suggest 
humbly).

I mean, I'm glad I learned about that here, as talk-ca seems an appropriate 
place to learn that.  Yet our wiki updated with those links took me about 
twenty seconds of cut-and-paste.

Yeah!

SteveA
California


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

Re: [Talk-ca] building imports (was Re: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 10)

[Matthew Darwin]

I should mention that there are others in Ottawa working on completing 
the buildings. The City import only had urban buildings.  Since the 
city of Ottawa is the largest rural city in Canada, so much work still 
to do. See http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/114 and 
http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/100



On 2018-01-25 11:13 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:


Hi Steve,

I'm not who the "movers and shakers" are really.   There is nobody 
really *driving* this project that I am aware of (the wiki suggests 
we should have a steering committee).   Every time I see email sent 
to the original distribution list of people invited to the meeting 
last September, I suggest the conversation continue here, but never 
really does.    (there is no conversation really)


What happened to all the agencies in that meeting that suggested 
this was a good idea?  What are they doing to contribute?  I have no 
idea.



Personally I'm spending on average several days/week working on 
improving OSM in the City of Ottawa.  
(http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?Matthew%20Darwin). My focus is roads 
geometry (mostly done... remaining work is pending getting info from 
the City of Ottawa... waiting 6 months with no answers) then 
addresses (in progress) then we'll see what's next Probably I 
will make the tooling I've worked on available as open source, and 
then do work on buildings.



On 2018-01-25 04:00 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

PLEASE, movers and shakers within BC2020i:  wiki, wiki, wiki!  A great deal of 
Project Management (critical to better establish in these early days of 
BC2020i) and indeed intra-project communication (status, how far along, what's 
current and upcoming...) can be communicated, very WELL-communicated, via this 
wiki.  Go!




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


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

Re: [Talk-ca] building imports (was Re: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 10)

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Steve,

I'm not who the "movers and shakers" are really.   There is nobody 
really *driving* this project that I am aware of (the wiki suggests we 
should have a steering committee).   Every time I see email sent to 
the original distribution list of people invited to the meeting last 
September, I suggest the conversation continue here, but never really 
does.    (there is no conversation really)


What happened to all the agencies in that meeting that suggested this 
was a good idea?  What are they doing to contribute?  I have no idea.



Personally I'm spending on average several days/week working on 
improving OSM in the City of Ottawa.  
(http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?Matthew%20Darwin). My focus is roads 
geometry (mostly done... remaining work is pending getting info from 
the City of Ottawa... waiting 6 months with no answers) then addresses 
(in progress) then we'll see what's next Probably I will make the 
tooling I've worked on available as open source, and then do work on 
buildings.



On 2018-01-25 04:00 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

PLEASE, movers and shakers within BC2020i:  wiki, wiki, wiki!  A great deal of 
Project Management (critical to better establish in these early days of 
BC2020i) and indeed intra-project communication (status, how far along, what's 
current and upcoming...) can be communicated, very WELL-communicated, via this 
wiki.  Go!


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

Re: [Talk-ca] A message aimed more at Ottawa

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi John,

After talking to many different folks about what their requirements 
are for a cycling map, it is clear to me that the cycling routing 
algorithm requires user-configurable tuning parameters.   People have 
different requirements at different times: from "find a nice path for 
a 6 year old to get to friends house" to "get me there the fastest no 
matter the traffic" and "find me an challenging route that is mostly 
off-road so I can get a great workout" and anything in between.   The 
community of needs is vast.


On 2018-01-23 04:55 PM, john whelan wrote:
Perhaps what we need is a way to tag cycle friendly streets.  
Typically I'll use a mixture of minor side streets and paths when 
using the trike.


So I'd prefer a routing that used these as much as possible rather 
than more major collector roads and you can't always determine from 
the speed limit if it's a cycle friendly road or not although I too 
avoid highways with a speed limit above 40 km/h.


Cheerio John

On 23 Jan 2018 3:27 pm, "OSM Volunteer stevea" 
> wrote:


Oops, the bicycle router I wanted to refer to in my previous is
http://cycle.travel by Richard Fairhurst (whom I inexplicably
confused with Simon Poole).

SteveA
California
___
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] A message aimed more at Ottawa

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Steve,

I share your desire to not duplicate stuff that is already done. There 
is a strong attempt in the Ottawa community to use standard OSM tags 
highway:cycleway, cycleway:lane/track and bicycle:*etc..


The bicycle router is very nice (cycle.travel). However, I think an 
Ottawa bike routing algorithm will require modifications to work in 
Ottawa where we need to tag routes as being maintained in the winter 
(or not) and then allowing you to choose if you want a 
winter-maintained route or not.


Also would like to see more options to avoid roads and only travel on 
paths that are lit.


For example, I just plugged in FROM/TO where I might go, and the route 
chosen is the most direct, but not the one I would take because it 
goes on a very busy section of road with traffic at 100km/hour with no 
shoulder. ... I would take the longer path. It also picks paths that 
are not cyclable at this time of year.


Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2018-01-23 03:25 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

Oops, the bicycle router I wanted to refer to in my previous is 
http://cycle.travel by Richard Fairhurst (whom I inexplicably confused with 
Simon Poole).

SteveA
California
___
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] A message aimed more at Ottawa

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi John,

The Ottawa cycling group is working on a "Level of Traffic Stress" map 
which is different than this.  This is because, my understanding, is 
that the City of Ottawa (for better or worse) uses LTS as their 
official way of measuring how they're doing on cycling 
infrastructure.  If you want the city to make changes, you need to 
talk their language.


However, I think ultimately, "bikeability" is where the Ottawa team 
wants to get to.   I've heard it mentioned that the existing work is 
meant to identify important gaps in the cycling network.


Too bad we couldn't collaborate better across the country on cycling 
activities.   Is there a national organization focused on cycling?


Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2017-12-23 09:30 AM, john whelan wrote:

I think the OSM article uses a variety of inputs.

https://urbandatacyclist.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/visualizing-the-bikeability-of-san-franciscos-roads/

It looks as if some work has been done in Vancouver.

It needs thinking through and combining both OpenStreetMap data and 
other sources.


"Bikeability: The term bikeability refers to the level of 
interaction between factors of the built and natural environments 
associated with the demand for cycling including infrastructure, 
slope, land use (destinations), and connectivity. This definition 
was derived from this study 
<http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/b38185>."


Note it's not only cycle paths etc but destinations and other 
information.


The cycling organisations might understand it better.  I think also 
the City of Ottawa has a person or group who promotes cycling and it 
might be worth involving them.


Cheerio John

On 23 December 2017 at 09:06, James <james2...@gmail.com 
<mailto:james2...@gmail.com>> wrote:


You mean like we've been doing for kitchissippi ward?

http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/84
<http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/84>

Other wards need same sort of tagging

On Dec 23, 2017 8:24 AM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com
<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Within weeklyosm there is a article on bikability.  I am
aware that some mappers in Ottawa are working with the local
cycle groups,could something be done for Ottawa?

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9805/
<http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9805/>

Thanks John

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
<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] Ottawa street names

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi John,

Attached is the note from the City of Ottawa with the name change.  It 
is "Épinettes Avenue" in English since 2014.


*City of Ottawa Official Format*



*English*



*French*

avenue des Épinettes Avenue



Épinettes Avenue



avenue des Épinettes

promenade des Mésanges Drive



Mésanges Drive



promenade des Mésanges

chemin de Montréal Road



Montréal Road



chemin de Montréal

boulevard d’Orléans Boulevard



Orléans Boulevard



boulevard d’Orléans

promenade de la Place-d’Orléans Drive



Place-d’Orléans Drive



promenade de la Place-d’Orléans

Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2017-12-04 06:57 AM, James wrote:

DES EPINETTES AVE
is english. Des Epinettes Avenue. French is avenue Des Epinettes.

Dont look hard for an Explaination why they keep the french article, 
we are talking about a city that has Forest instead of Fôrest. 
There's also Des Aubépines that keeps the é.


On Dec 4, 2017 6:49 AM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com 
<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>> wrote:


There seems to be some confusion over the English version and
French versions of the street names.

Canada Post recognises 375 DES EPINETTES AVE ORLEANS ON   K1E
3E6 as an English address.

Until very recently this would also be the address in
OpenStreetMap and used by the city.

There is a by-law that says what the differences are.

Has something changed recently?

Many thanks John

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



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




ForwardedMessage.eml
Description: application/extension-eml
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Ottawa street names

[Matthew Darwin]

Here's the info I have:

From: "Young, Erin" <erin.yo...@ottawa.ca>
To: Addressing And Signs <addressingandsi...@ottawa.ca>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:35:00 +

*City of Ottawa - Notice of Street Name Corrections – Effective 
immediately*


**

The Director of Building Code Services, under delegated authority 
granted by By-law 2014-78, approved corrections to the spelling of 
five street names. These names were missing accents, articles or 
hyphens or had incorrect capitalization. These changes are part of the 
City’s Street Name Verification Project, one of the post-amalgamation 
initiatives to resolve street name anomalies.


Please make the necessary changes to your records to reflect the 
corrected street names as they appear in the table below, in 
accordance with the language format used.


*City of Ottawa Official Format*



*English*



*French*

avenue des Épinettes Avenue



Épinettes Avenue



avenue des Épinettes

promenade des Mésanges Drive



Mésanges Drive



promenade des Mésanges

chemin de Montréal Road



Montréal Road



chemin de Montréal

boulevard d’Orléans Boulevard



Orléans Boulevard



boulevard d’Orléans

promenade de la Place-d’Orléans Drive



Place-d’Orléans Drive



promenade de la Place-d’Orléans

Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2017-12-04 06:57 AM, James wrote:

DES EPINETTES AVE
is english. Des Epinettes Avenue. French is avenue Des Epinettes.

Dont look hard for an Explaination why they keep the french article, 
we are talking about a city that has Forest instead of Fôrest. 
There's also Des Aubépines that keeps the é.


On Dec 4, 2017 6:49 AM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com 
<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>> wrote:


There seems to be some confusion over the English version and
French versions of the street names.

Canada Post recognises 375 DES EPINETTES AVE ORLEANS ON   K1E
3E6 as an English address.

Until very recently this would also be the address in
OpenStreetMap and used by the city.

There is a by-law that says what the differences are.

Has something changed recently?

Many thanks John

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
<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] Disconnected addresses

[Matthew Darwin]

No ideas from me... I was doing the Ottawa area manually.  It takes a 
while because you need to review the history of both the street and 
the address to see which one was most recently changed so you know 
which one to correct... plus add comments on the change that caused it 
to be out of alignment so people are aware. (I didn't comment on every 
change... once I found a pattern, I stopped commenting).


There are still a few in Ottawa that don't match up.  Either because 
the address and the street are far apart and it is a false-positive 
error, or the capitalization on the street names don't match... I'm 
waiting (for 3 months now) for the City of Ottawa to get back to me on 
what is the correct name and then I will fix either the street or the 
address accordingly.   So long way of saying, anything within the 
bounds of the City of Ottawa, I will fix.


On 2017-10-31 06:11 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

Hi all,

We started fixing this in the Ottawa region, but the problem is 
bigger than just around the ways that our team updated. I updated 
the ticket with a dump that we got from OSMI. We are looking at how 
to best approach this pretty significant fix up task. I will keep 
you updated. In the mean time, if you have any ideas for how to 
approach this, let me know. Thanks!

Martijn

On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org 
<mailto:m...@rtijn.org>> wrote:


Hi all,

Matthew Darwin pointed out on Github that some street name updates 
by the Telenav team lead to 'orphaned' address nodes. The ticket is 
here: https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues/34


This is just to let you know that we are aware and planning to fix 
soonest.


Thanks and my apologies. Let us know if you encountered this 
anywhere else.


Martijn




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


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

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

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi all,

my 2c:

If we want to have a bunch of new to OSM people map things, I would 
suggest that these is a *physical location* with *experts presen**t*. 
  As we see with the Carleton University example (not uOttawa), it's 
hard to get new folks on board... i would guess  that although there 
was training provided to Carleton Students, it was done as a lecture 
rather than a lab.


I was introduced to OSM mapping by joining a meetup, getting an intro 
and then everyone sitting around one big table (experts and new folks) 
with their laptops and start working through whatever the project was. 
It lasted 2-3 hours. I thought it worked well, and could start working 
through things on my own after, but still asking questions of 
experts.  I still made mistakes, but having experts sitting in the 
same room to ask questions was invaluable for me.


On 2017-10-18 04:04 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:
Il y a d'autres priorités que les immeubles et je ne suis pas 
convaincu que l'objectif Immeubles 2020 proposé par des partenaires 
doit être endossé par la communauté OSM-Canada.


Encore plus que le monde rural, il y a tout le nord à cartographier. 
Puis les divers projets de Mapathon on montré que de grandes vagues 
de nouveaux contributeurs arrivent rapidement, cartographient 
souvent sans la précision et la qualité nécessaire et quittent après 
souvent une seule soirée de participation.


L'objectif de tels mapathons doit être repensé. Il doit viser à 
initer et former des nouveaux contributeurs. L'exemple de 
l'université d'Ottawa nous montre comment ces groupes ont besoin de 
support. Il ne s'agit pas de faire de la publicité et les convaincre 
de démarrer des projets. Nous aurons ensuite à réparer les pots cassés.


En  Haiti, lors de l'ouragan Matthews en octobre 2016 des vagues 
déferlantes de contributeurs ont laissé pendant deux semaines des 
vagues déferlantes de mauvaises données. Personne ensuite pour réparer.


Vite, vite, repensons cette approche.

Pierre


Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017 15:38:19 HAE, Stewart C. Russell 
 a écrit :



Hi Julia

> I would like to know if you have any suggestions on
> cities/towns/communities in Canada to focus on, particularly rural
> regions that are not mapped and have high resolution imagery.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if there was much intersection between
"rural" and "high-resolution imagery" in Canada. Our rural population
density is very low.

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] Mapping of bilingual destination signs

[Matthew Darwin]

Thanks J.P.

If at some point there is a more clear boundary maybe someone could 
update the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_Brunswick to 
give the rest of us more clear guidance.



On 2017-10-03 12:16 AM, J.P. Kirby wrote:

On 2017-10-03, at 12:33 AM, Matthew Darwin <matt...@mdarwin.ca> wrote:


Hi J.P.

This sounds reasonable.  Do we have a map that shows which areas of the 
province are French area vs English area.  For us non-NBers.   Or I suppose one 
could guess by looking at the existing tags there.  (I would assume Fredericton 
is English area?)  If we have a list then could update the NB wiki page. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_Brunswick

The general rule is that southern and western NB is English, northern and 
eastern is French; but there are exceptions, and a couple places like Bathurst 
and Campbellton are 50/50.

But yes, you can almost always tell from the tags and the street names themselves (e.g. "St. 
Mary's" vs "Sainte-Marie").

JPK


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping of bilingual destination signs

[Matthew Darwin]

Should we follow the convention that the local language does not need 
a language tag and the alternate language does.  So for Fredericton 
(or Ottawa), it is


destination=New Maryland
destination:street:fr=Rue Regent Sud
destination:street=Regent Street South
destination:ref=101 South

This way existing renderers that don't understand the language 
extension continue to work.


On 2017-10-09 03:52 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

Hi all,

I contacted the most active mappers in NB. It seems that mapping 
bilingual street destinations with destination:street:fr and 
destination:street:en respectively is an acceptable solution. So the 
exit way related to the image in our ticket 
(https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues/27) would 
be mapped as:


destination=New Maryland
destination:street:fr=Rue Regent Sud
destination:street:en=Regent Street South
destination:ref=101 South

(just destination tags, ignoring the other tags obviously needed)

As promised, I will update the OSM wiki to clarify the 
destination:street tagging some.


Does this sound okay to you?

Thanks for all your feedback.
Martijn


On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org 
<mailto:m...@rtijn.org>> wrote:


Hi all,

Thanks all for your input. I get a sense that there is a
preference for separating out the names on these destination
signs in separate language tags, even though documentation for
destination:street is sparse. To be sure I contacted what I hope
are the top mappers in NB. A list of mappers I contacted and the
message I sent is in the github ticket
(https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues/27
<https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues/27>).
This is based on the Pascal Neis web site
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/oooc
<http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/oooc> .

It would be nice to update the NB wiki page with a French /
English map but I will leave that to the experts.

I will try and clarify the destination:street documentation on
the wiki next week.

Martijn

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:16 PM, J.P. Kirby
<webmas...@the506.com <mailto:webmas...@the506.com>> wrote:


    On 2017-10-03, at 12:33 AM, Matthew Darwin
<matt...@mdarwin.ca <mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>> wrote:

> Hi J.P.
>
> This sounds reasonable.  Do we have a map that shows which
areas of the province are French area vs English area.  For
us non-NBers.  Or I suppose one could guess by looking at
the existing tags there.  (I would assume Fredericton is
English area?)  If we have a list then could update the NB
wiki page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_Brunswick
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_Brunswick>

The general rule is that southern and western NB is English,
northern and eastern is French; but there are exceptions,
and a couple places like Bathurst and Campbellton are 50/50.

But yes, you can almost always tell from the tags and the
street names themselves (e.g. "St. Mary's" vs "Sainte-Marie").

JPK


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
<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] COMS2200 Ottawa, Carleton University

[Matthew Darwin]

Tracey,

I just want to say some of the edits are really destructive: eg entire 
streets are changed/removed (on campus and off campus).  My automated 
error checking script comparing what is in the City of Ottawa street 
list and what is in OSM caught some errors, which I spent time 
fixing.  Adding fire hydrants and trees in the middle of roads, 
tagging a street lamp as an address are other very weird things I 
found.  The students need to pay way more attention to what they are 
doing.


Less volume, more quality please!

On 2017-10-10 10:25 PM, James wrote:
1. the restriction was a login(zero minute) block to grab users 
attention after multiple attempts trying to contact: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/YueYuan/history#map=18/45.35567/-75.75291 
so once they login and view the message they can edit again


2. They have not been editing just around Carleton Campus, there 
have been students editing out on baseline and other areas of Ottawa


3. I've been trying to fix them, but at 1000+ changesets this is 
going to be a monumental task.


I'm not trying to stop your students from contributing, but when 
they simply ignore advice we try to give them to correct said 
actions(kept contributing after multiple changeset comments: they 
get an email per changeset comment) we need a higher power(admins) 
to step in so we can discuss like human beings.



On Oct 10, 2017 10:14 PM, "Tracey P. Lauriault" > wrote:


Greetings OSM mappers;

I understand that students for COMS2200 have been blocked from
posting to OSM.

There was also an unfortunate email sent to Carleton University
by one of your members that is circulating through the
administration from (james2...@gmail.com
).

The data are being contributed as part of an assignment
described here - https://github.com/TraceyLauriault/COMS2200A


I understand that the students are making some small and some
large mistakes that may not meet your OSM data quality
standards.  The students are restricted to only be mapping the
Carleton University Campus.

I wonder if it might be possible to unlock the restriction to
let them finish the assignment.  They should be done by next
week. There are 150 students.  Once the assignment is complete I
would gladly work with you to salvage the data, delete some
data, repair some data or wipe all of the data.

We apologize for this inconvenience and hope that you can be
empathetic and allow for the assignment to be completed so that
the students can be assessed.

Also, perhaps there are a number of common errors and if you
identify them we may be able to fix them.

Sincerely
Tracey

-- 
*/Tracey P. Lauriault/*


Assistant Professor Critical Media Studies and Big Data
Communication Studies School of Journalism and Communication
Suite 4110, River Building Carleton University 1125 Colonel By
Drive Ottawa (ON) K1S 5B6

1-613-520-2600 x7443 
tracey.lauria...@carleton.ca
@TraceyLauriault
Skype: Tracey.P.Lauriault
https://carleton.ca/sjc/people-archives/lauriault-tracey/


___
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] Mapping of bilingual destination signs

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi J.P.

This sounds reasonable.  Do we have a map that shows which areas of 
the province are French area vs English area.  For us non-NBers.   Or 
I suppose one could guess by looking at the existing tags there.  (I 
would assume Fredericton is English area?)  If we have a list then 
could update the NB wiki page. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_Brunswick



On 2017-10-02 11:03 PM, J.P. Kirby wrote:


I live in NB but haven't been involved in tagging these particular signs. While mapping street 
names, I tend to use "name=x Street" and "name:fr=Rue x" in English-speaking 
areas of the province, with the opposite in French areas. I see no reason we can't do something 
similar with destination signs, even if the double-colon may look unwieldy.

After all it is, officially, "Regent Street" in English and "Rue Regent" in French, not 
"Rue Regent Street" in both.

JPK
___
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 of bilingual destination signs

[Matthew Darwin]

No,

This is about the "desination" sign that you find on major highways, 
usually they are green.  "Exit 114 chemin Anderson Road" or whatever.


And this specific issue is about road signs in New Brunswick, and New 
Brunswick is the only official bilingual province in Canada.


Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2017-10-02 11:01 AM, john whelan wrote:

> destination:street

I'm confused by this.  According to taginfo there are only 11,000 
entries and there is no wiki page.


We have highway=residential, name=xyz street, name:fr=rue xyz

I assume name here is what you mean.

Ottawa is not officially bilingual, it is officially English but 
services are offered in French.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names

also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa and 
look for bilingual street names.


Different parts of Canada have different rules according to who is 
the authority for naming streets or setting the rules for naming 
streets.


Cheerio John



On 2 October 2017 at 10:10, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org 
<mailto:m...@rtijn.org>> wrote:


Thank you for all the responses. It seems that using
destination:street is expected to have the name in the local
official language. If the sign is bilingual, I propose then to
add the other name as destination:street:en or
destination:street:fr, respectively. This is not yet a
documented tag, but I see no other sensible way to do it and it
seems to me that it would be a logical extension, considering we
already have name:[language ISO code] tags in wide use.

Does this sound agreeable?

Thanks
Martijn

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Pierre Béland
<pierz...@yahoo.fr <mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr>> wrote:

Les différentes provinces ou états ont souvent un organisme
responsable de faire l'inventaire des noms officiels. Au
Québec,  c'est la Commission de toponymie qui est responsable.
http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/accueil.aspx
<http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/accueil.aspx>

Sur leur site, on retrouve des listes de noms et les règles
qui s'appliquent pour les noms au Québec.
Pour les règles, voir
http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/normes-procedures/regles-ecriture/
<http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/normes-procedures/regles-ecriture/>

Les noms affichés sur Geobase.ca correspondent souvent à ces
règles puisque les données de Ressources naturelles Canada
sont fournies par les provinces. Par contre, il peut y avoir
un certain retard lors de modifications de noms. Dans la
section Fournisseurs d'image de JOSM, on retrouve un lien
vers la couche RRN de Geobase. Les données sont aussi
disponibles par province en shapefile.

http://ouvert.canada.ca/data/fr/dataset/3d282116-e556-400c-9306-ca1a3cada77f

<http://ouvert.canada.ca/data/fr/dataset/3d282116-e556-400c-9306-ca1a3cada77f>

cordialement

Pierre


--
*De :* john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com
<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>>
*À :* Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org <mailto:m...@rtijn.org>>
*Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>>
*Envoyé le :* vendredi 29 Septembre 2017 16h52
*Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping of bilingual destination signs

Whilst I think about it Ottawa is an amalgam of smaller
municipalities so is slowly changing street names to avoid
duplicates.  I seem to recall an employee in the street
naming bit is adjusting street names in OSM.  So please do
not change a street name to match a photo that might have
been taken some time ago.

In Quebec I understand province wide the standard for names
on maps is "Rue xyz" in Ontario it is left to the
municipality whether to capitalise the first letter or not
so you need to know the rules for each municipality.

Have fun

Cheerio John

On 29 Sep 2017 4:20 pm, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com
<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Ottawa is one of the few places that has bilingual
street names.

On the same street I've seen just the name, name street
and rue name street signs.

In Ottawa the majority are Slater street in name then
rue Slater in name:french.

Anything else means it is difficult to search for the
name electronically.  "rue Slater Street"  is not easy
to enter.

Note for Ottawa it is rue Slater not Rue Slater.  Ot

Re: [Talk-ca] Stats Canada building project

[Matthew Darwin]

Is there anyone on point to drive this activity?


On 2017-09-28 06:58 AM, john whelan wrote:

Looks like we need to talk nicely to Open-Ouvert.

Thanks John

On 27 September 2017 at 21:54, Stewart C. Russell > wrote:


On 2017-09-27 07:00 PM, john whelan wrote:
> No we need to persuade the municipalities to move to the new
standard
> license in the TB kit

Is this initiative published anywhere, John? I virtually
attended the
conference it was supposed to be announced at, and all there is is
Jean-Noé's announcement:
http://open.canada.ca/en/blog/coming-soon-do-it-yourself-open-data-toolkit


I also don't remember any consultation on what it was going to
look like.

 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] Building Canada 2020 initiative

[Matthew Darwin]

Another good reason to create an organization that holds the keys to 
key OSM resources... then it can out-survive all of us. :-)



On 2017-09-29 09:41 AM, James wrote:
I and others can give access to people to create projects on the 
tasking manager. I understand that one person might disapear, i'll 
try not to die in the next 2 years ;)


On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:37 AM, john whelan > wrote:


But that is only a single person for a project of this size you
need some sort of team approach.  Although buses are fairly safe
the odd one gets hit by a train and if you happen to be sitting
in the front seat you may not be available to sort things out.

Cheerio John

On 29 September 2017 at 09:33, James > wrote:

To answer you question about who would organise the tasking
manager, I'm willing to do so.

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:24 AM, john whelan
> wrote:

A couple of comments:

1. Pierre Beland**
 has identified
95% of contributors only map 6% of the assets.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pierzen/status/910551645498552321

We would need to use those 5% of mappers who do the most
mapping and they have their own agendas and reasons for
mapping. They are more likely to throw their weight
behind something that looks achievable and I'm not sure
this is.

2. I've put up a sample of buildings being mapped from a
mapathon. https://www.jatws.org/johnw/building3.jpg
 as you can
see in my opinion the quality is not suitable for Stats
Canada's use.  Some buildings are grouped together with
others as a single building, others are mapped the wrong
shape or size.  Quite often buildings are omitted. 
There are better examples and there are worse examples

but it is not untypical and it was this experience that
made me suggest the Open Data import route in the first
place.

So Open Data import is better for quality.  Adding tags
to building foot prints is less error prone.

3. There are more than 5,000 municipal governments in
Canada source Stats Can.  It took five years to get the
City of Ottawa to update their Open Data license. 
Treasury Board still hasn't released their Open Data

tool kit for the municipalities.  With good will I
estimate it will take two years to get the Open Data
licenses amended.  Kingston might be a good target. 
With any questions and there will be a number, this

figure can be expected to drift out to three to four
years.  Who is responsible to answer questions, in both
official languages?  Who will make the requests to
municipal governments to adopt a usable Open Data license?

In Ottawa we had the right mix of resources.  We had
enough local mappers to discuss things through which is
part of the import process. We had good will from the
City of Ottawa and they were happy to release building
foot print data which had not been part of their Open
Data so far.  The import process is not simple these
days, it would need  the steps to follow to be
documented and then you get the technical side of the
import.  I'm a fairly experienced mapper and to be
honest I wouldn't attempt the sort of complex import
that was done in Ottawa.  I'm not sure the Ottawa
experience is repeatable more than five thousand times.

We can approach the OSM LWG for an opinion on existing
licenses but they are volunteers and for five thousand
opinions that would take a considerable amount of time
and if the license weren't the TB toolkit ones I
wouldn't even bother.

The community is supposed to be doing this.  Fine but a
project manager and a project plan might make it run
more smoothly.  Data quality will be important so how
will it be verified?  Who will be responsible for
organising task manager tiles for the whole country? Who
will identify the group of mappers who are "local" to a
small municipality?  Remember these have a critical
decision making role to play in the import process.

Have fun.

Cheerio John


On 28 

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

[Matthew Darwin]

Yes.

Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2017-09-28 12:17 PM, James wrote:
And as a local chapter new comers could suggest/view tasks to work 
on. Kind of like what we did for Fort Mac.


A centralized communication hub would enable us to move forward and 
concentrate our efforts(small remote villages for example)




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

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

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Brian,

In my view we definitely need OSMCanada to go beyond the big cities.  
It is not "Canada" if we don't.


In my view the main things that a collection of people cannot do on 
their own are:


1) Have a bank account.  There are groups that would give and 
organization money to do things around OSM. You can't just give money 
to an individual.   Also might need to look into charitable status 
later on so people could give donations and get a tax receipt (more 
paperwor overhead for that)


2) Look into getting money from the feds.  There have been 
announcements about Feds making money available for Smart Cities and 
related activities, for sure money cannot go to individuals. I am 
waiting to see the details on what they are going to fund.


Monies received could go towards meetups/hosting costs (which people 
pay out of their own pocket now) as well as "hiring" people to work on 
specific projects which normally they would not spend time on or 
maybe travel costs to go do a survey in an area which needs help, but 
has no expert mappers. or more training activities for folks. I could 
also see an educational component whereas it would be great to have 
people go into highschool civic classes and do a session on OSM.


3) The Building Canada 2020 project needs some leadership to make 
things happen.  Having an organization helping to drive that would 
make that easier.


4) There are things that some folks across the country have done to 
improve their area of the map... would be good to share practices more 
broadly, in a Canadian context.


Of course all of these can be done in a private organization (eg like 
Mapbox), but I feel that building an organization to represent the 
broader community would be more beneficial in the long run.


My 2c.

On 2017-09-28 08:19 AM, Brian Bancroft wrote:

Hi Matthew,

It seems like an interesting idea. I've been travelling a bit 
lately, and I've found there's a lot of people out there who don't 
know about OSM where the platform is exactly what they need.


Would a robust OSMCanada spread the Gospel beyond the cities? Would 
it seek to incorporate local GIS imports on the map with legal 
support and task management?


Do we know what an incorporated OSMCanada would do that the informal 
association of really nice and diligent people can't do on their own?


I won't be making SoTMUS this year, but I'd love to hear more about 
what your aims are with this venture, and the problems you and 
others believe (or know) it would solve through incorporation and 
(possibly?)  sweet government handouts. I'm guessing that these are 
the questions you want to crunch out while you're at the gathering 
of interesting people.


Best wishes and good luck with this endeavour,

Brian




*From:* jwhelan0...@gmail.com
*Sent:* September 28, 2017 7:06 AM
*To:* scr...@gmail.com
*Cc:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] OSM Canada & State of the Map US: Oct 20-22


I hadn't heard of them and I'm in Ottawa but there again I'm not 
very sociable.  I question why such a decision would be made out of 
the country?


Does it matter if someone creates a not for profit Canadian 
corporation? I think it would have to change its name though there 
have been discussions recently about the use of OSM in names.


Cheerio John

On 27 September 2017 at 21:59, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com 
<mailto:scr...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On 2017-09-27 05:49 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are any Canadian folks going to State of the Map US October 20-22
> https://2017.stateofthemap.us/

Nope. Wish I could afford it.

> During the conference, I would like to have a discussion about
turning
> the informal https://www.osmcanada.ca/ into a not-for-profit
Canadian
> corporation.

I'd be opposed. Who are osmcanada? They don't represent me. Last
I heard
it was an informal group of mappers in Ottawa. What would the
non-profit
do? How would it justify its status? Would it be attempting to be an
OSMF Chapter?

 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
<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] Stats Canada building project

[Matthew Darwin]

How do we want to move this discussion forward?  Do we need to set up 
a time to talk on the phone? I am willing to help coordinate logistics.


On 2017-09-17 10:55 AM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:

On 2017-09-17 10:40 AM, john whelan wrote:

They'd like to extend it across Canada so now might be the time to think
about the project.

That sounds good. Despite some prodding, the Licence Working Group (LWG)
hasn't got back to me with any updates on how they want to handle the
Toronto or Ontario licences. I first contacted them in March, so if it
takes them six months or more to look at the licence, then this import
is a multi year (if not multi-decade) project. Remember, LWG has decided
that *every* Canadian licence variant needs their sign-off.

Denis Carr (open data lead) from Toronto has been on board since the
spring, and I hope hasn't forgotten us.

Toronto has nice building outlines (embedded in the 3D Massing data set,
so we can pull out base elevation and height). We also have address
points already in the middle of buildings.

It also is of great help that the Esri Community Imagery includes some
very nice municipal air photos for verification.

  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] OSM Canada & State of the Map US: Oct 20-22

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi,

Are any Canadian folks going to State of the Map US October 20-22 
https://2017.stateofthemap.us/


During the conference, I would like to have a discussion about turning 
the informal https://www.osmcanada.ca/ into a not-for-profit Canadian 
corporation.  I'm looking for other folks who think this might be a 
good idea (or maybe have a contrary opinion) and want to talk about it.


Of course comments are accepted here or directly to me 
(matt...@mdarwin.ca).


Thanks!

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