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) < alessandro.ala...@canada.ca> 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. Though, given that the > Working Group resources are scarce, and assuming the approach outlined > above works for building footprints, we would be happy to discuss the > feasibility of compiling and re-releasing other municipal open data under > the open data licence of the Canadian federal government. > > Finally, as I mentioned in other communications, my team is also exploring > other activities that will hopefully contribute to the BC2020i. These > activities touch on data analysis, data monitoring, and building footprint > extraction from satellite imagery. For this work, we are primarily using > open source tools and applications that can be integrated in open source > environments (more updates on all of this hopefully soon!). > > More updates, feedback, and follow up on other interesting points of > discussion later on. > > Regards to all, > > Alessandro and DEIL team > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
