If we have a description of the scope of the work involved in updating the
BC2020 OD tables, I don’t mind trying to find some senior students who could be
trained to take on this task for locations in Ontario. It would be a very small
start, of course. Also, can someone explain to me the licensing issue? How do
datasets released under the open government license not meet the legal
requirements of the OSM license?
Jonathan
From: talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 7:00 AM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 16
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 #392 2018-01-16-2018-01-22 (weeklyteam)
2. Re: BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
(OSM Volunteer stevea)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 08:21:47 -0800 (PST)
From: weeklyteam <theweekly....@gmail.com>
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #392 2018-01-16-2018-01-22
Message-ID: <5a6ca71b.d4951c0a.8ae59.9...@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 392,
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/9884/
Enjoy!
weeklyOSM?
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages
where?:
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 12:41:23 -0800
From: OSM Volunteer stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com>
To: "Stewart C. Russell" <scr...@gmail.com>, talk-ca
<talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
Message-ID: <1145fd9b-205b-4d3d-a8c8-0b2f5846a...@softworkers.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On Jan 26, 2018, at 8:12 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-01-26 09:56 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>> What I did was to "back-populate" the list of "approved" (by whom? when?
>> how did these get here?) list of Canadian cities from
>> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities into OSM's
>> BC2020 wiki.
>
> These are very old and pre-date the formal import documentation process.
> The Toronto permission e-mail from 2011 or so amounted to not much more
> than “Sure ;-)” [smiley included in original]. I don't think the process
> would pass muster now.
OK, so "correct" is to immediately remove from
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities EVERY SINGLE
CITY (except Ottawa). If it was an error to list them then, (that's what I
read above) it is an error to list them now. Anyone with an OSM wiki account
can do this — and now, someone should, preferably someone in Canada with a
sense of ownership that this process of entering additional Canadian cities
into Contributors went awry. This could be a majority of people reading this
post: any takers?
> Unfortunately, none of us are lawyers, the OSMF's lawyers are very busy
> and naturally conservative, and slogging through licence work (and
> myriad outdated wiki pages) is no fun for anyone, least of all volunteers.
Some of us are lawyers (I'm not), though any OSM volunteer should strive to "do
the right things," especially in matters related to "proper licensing." Proper
OD licensing is one task which has emerged as an "obstacle" (so documented in
WikiProject BC2020) from the desire to see continuing project forward momentum.
To go forward, if wiki pages are outdated (and Stewart says above that they
are), well, please update outdated wiki pages. You don't have to be a lawyer
to do that, especially as the data are known to be outdated or wrong.
"Slogging through license work," partly DOES require being a lawyer (at least
within OSM's LWG) and for the project to go forward, yes, that is a longer-term
task to complete. (I hesitate to say "slog," though it may be one).
I offer to "change from green to red" wiki table status for all cities (except
Ottawa), although I'd also like to see Contributors be updated (with only
Ottawa) as I suggest. Teamwork, anybody? Simply to keep our project-wide
communication current? It's neither difficult nor time-consuming and shares
present status with "the rest of us."
We may not have brilliant ignition here, but at least the embers are orange and
warm. Though, after many lungfuls by me, I'm getting a bit dizzy stoking these
fires.
SteveA
California
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
------------------------------
End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 16
****************************************
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
