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

[Denis Carriere]

There's been a lot of discussion on the license, however has anyone read
the documentation on the import yet? Could the OSM Talk-CA provide any
feedback on this, that way once the license is sorted out we can start
immediately afterwards.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan

For those who are more the visual type, we've created a YouTube video
explaining the workflow proposed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkFCkPBR7PA

If there's no feedback related to the Import Wiki page we're going to
assumed this section of the import is approved.

Cheers,

*~~*
*Denis Carriere*
*GIS Software & Systems Specialist*

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 1/22/2017 9:06 AM, James wrote:
>
>> So if I understand correctly Paul, CC0 or any other license would require
>> permission as a bypass to the license, even though it would be considered
>> compatible with ODBL.
>>
>
> No. CC0 is compatible with the ODbL, so you can just go ahead and use the
> data*, subject to any conditions the community has developed around imports.
>
> * There could be exceptional circumstances in some cases.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Paul Norman]

On 1/22/2017 9:06 AM, James wrote:
So if I understand correctly Paul, CC0 or any other license would 
require permission as a bypass to the license, even though it would be 
considered compatible with ODBL.


No. CC0 is compatible with the ODbL, so you can just go ahead and use 
the data*, subject to any conditions the community has developed around 
imports.


* There could be exceptional circumstances in some cases.

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

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

[Paul Norman]

On 1/22/2017 9:48 AM, James wrote:
So why is this not considered the exact same as OGL-CA, which is 
considered compatible with ODBL?




As mentioned previously, the OGL-CA is compatible because the Federal 
government has said so for their data. The Federal government's 
statement only applies to their data under their license.


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

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

[Paul Norman]

On 1/22/2017 7:07 AM, John Marshall wrote:

Paul,

So once we get a letter from the City of Ottawa, are we good to add 
the buildings as per the wiki?


It depends what they say in their reply. If they say no, then we can't 
use their data. If we have a suitable reply, then we are able to legally 
use their data.


There are of course other requirements that the community has developed 
like documenting the import, etc, and the letter has nothing to do with 
these.


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

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-01-22 12:48 PM, James wrote:
> 
> So why is this not considered the exact same as OGL-CA, which is
> considered compatible with ODBL?

My understanding of why it's not the same:

1) The OGL-CA, due to a fault in its design, can only be used by the
Canadian Federal Government. Contrast that with OGL-UK which is written
as a general licence for any organization in the UK public sector to use.

2) The Ottawa licence has some differences, apart from the information
provider in the definitions:

 - it's missing the introduction completely

 - in excluding personal information, it refers to the Ontario
   Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
   rather than the federal Privacy Act. These laws have different scopes

I'd tend to agree with Steve that if permission has been given by the
City, then I can't see any other objection. Paul Norman may have to
chime in with any remaining concerns.

I would ask those who claim that we should accept this because the
Federal government's lawyers and staff say we should: does the Federal
government have the best interests of OSM as a continuing project at
heart? One cannot rely on the opinion of other people's lawyers, because
they have different goals.

 Stewart


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

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

[James]

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

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

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




On Jan 22, 2017 12:36 PM, "Steve Singer"  wrote:

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

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

[Steve Singer]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Paul Norman wrote:


On 1/20/2017 6:00 PM, James wrote:

Is OGL-CA not compatible with osm?


The license isn't OGL-CA. OGL-CA is the license from the Federal 
government, while the City of Ottawa uses the ODL. In the case of OGL-CA 
data it's compatible because they gave a statement on compatibility.


It seems to me that there are at least three situations that can crop up in 
deciding if we can use data


1) A reading of the license text allows the use with OSM.  If the text of a 
given license is compatible with the requirements of OSM then  I don't see 
why we need any additional statement.


2) The compatibility of the license is unclear because of particular terms 
of the license.  A particular government entity then gives us a statement 
saying that they feel the license is compatible with OSM.  That same 
government entity would then have a hard time coming back later and saying 
that the license isn't compatible. However it doesn't tie the hands of other 
government entities that happen to be using the same license.


3) A particular license might not be compatible with OSM but the government 
entity gives us permission to use their data.  In this case the 'permission' 
is the license.


Why doesn't the OGL 2.0 qualify as compatible under criteria 1? Is there any 
particular term in a templated OGL 2.0 that someone feels is a concern?


Replacing a  variable with 'Government of 
Canada' versus 'City of Ottawa' doesn't change the license.  we see this 
in software licenses all the time. The BSD software license reads 'Regents 
of the University of California' but changing that to the organization that 
is releasing the code doesn't make it no longer be a BSD license.


The whole point of open-data licenses is that people can use the data 
without having to get special permission from the government for each use of 
the data.  Some of the licenses used by Canadian governments in the past 
had clauses that made them not open/suitable. It isn't clear to me what the 
problem is with this license.



Steve




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




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

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

[James]

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

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

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

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

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

[John Marshall]

Paul,

So once we get a letter from the City of Ottawa, are we good to add the
buildings as per the wiki?

John

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:41 AM, john whelan  wrote:

> There is another way forward for Stats at the moment and that would be to
> use the Statistics Canada address file which is available on the Federal
> Government Open Data portal under the Federal Government Open Data
> licence.  The addresses are nodes rather than building outlines but there
> is nothing to stop building:levels, and postcode etc. being added to a node.
>
> This was the file that Metrolink used to add addresses in the Toronto
> area.  It also has the benefit that it uses less storage in the OSM
> database.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 21 January 2017 at 21:34, john whelan  wrote:
>
>> It's to do with the way government works and is structured.  What you
>> have is an official interpretation which carries weight.  Quite a lot of
>> weight.
>>
>> Essentially both Canada and the UK are run by acts of parliament.
>> However these are normally interpreted by civil servants to keep things
>> running smoothly. For example in the UK by an Act of parliament of 1837
>> bicycles are not permitted to  use the sidewalks but administratively you
>> will not be prosecuted for cycling on the sidewalk in certain parts of the
>> UK.  The act hasn't been repealed but it is simply not enforced.  The
>> decision was taken by a civil servant after consultations but is upheld by
>> the government.
>>
>> The day to day running is done by civil servants interpreting the
>> minister's wishes or act of Parliament.  There will be discussion and
>> debate at a greater depth than either a minister or Parliament have the
>> time for and the decision will be recorded together with the reasons for
>> and against it.  This can lead to a formal report with a recommendation.
>> It is a brave manager or minister who doesn't accept the recommendations.
>> Have a look at Yes Minister and you'll see that brave here means foolish.
>> There has to be a level of trust between the politicians and the civil
>> service for this to work.  The direction is set by the politicians but the
>> day to day stuff by the civil servants.  If a civil servant screws up then
>> its special assignment time which is the civil service way of terminating
>> you.  So an interpretation is not given lightly.
>>
>> It has taken three or four years of discussion to get this far.  My
>> understanding is the City of Ottawa licence actually makes reference to the
>> Federal government licence in the FAQ basically because all the expertise,
>> hard work and effort on licensing was done at the federal level.
>>
>> I think in this case you have to rely on civil servants and retired civil
>> servants expertise.  Both Bjenk and I are of the opinion, as his his
>> manager, that for practical purposes the OGL-CA and the Municipal
>> equivalent are identical.  There are a number of CANVEC employees and
>> retired employees floating around as well who will have an opinion but I
>> think it will be supportive.  The open data manager at Ottawa is also of
>> the same opinion.  My casual contacts at TB on the Open Data side are also
>> of the same opinion.
>>
>> My hope is that we can accept Open Data from municipalities that are
>> covered by the equivalent of the OGL-CA.  What you seem to be asking for is
>> a resolution or vote by each municipality of their councillors before OSM
>> can use the data.  This I think is getting towards the unreasonable and
>> unwieldy side of things.
>>
>> Canadian cities would like to encourage their citizens to walk, cycle and
>> use public transport.  Tagging which paths maybe used by cycles helps both
>> sides.  In Ottawa until I sat down with the cycling specialist and pointed
>> out on their cycle maps one path running through a park was on their cycle
>> maps and an identical one in the same park wasn't so how was I to know
>> which could be used?  I was armed with photos from both paths and of the
>> signs, they were identical.  After that the city expanded its official
>> cycle path network by many kms.  "The *city of Ottawa* has a vibrant
>> *cycling* culture and now boasts over 600 km of multi-use pathways,
>> *bike* lanes, off-road paths and paved shoulders"  We need the City to
>> identify these so they can be correctly tagged on the map.  Often there are
>> no signs on a path to say if it maybe used by cyclists or not.
>>
>> Metrolink has done a fair bit of address mapping in OSM in support of
>> getting people to use public transport.  They're in Toronto by the way.
>> Both sides are better off with imported bus stops.
>>
>> Life was so much simpler when OSM was just a group of cyclists going
>> round with GPS devices recording tracks but I think times are changing and
>> there are benefits.  The main problem in my mind is controlling the quality
>> of data for an import and in its careful merging with existing data.  

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[John Marshall]

I agree with Bernie.

The intent of the City of Ottawa was for this data to be added to OSM.

John Marshall
Ottawa

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bernie Connors 
wrote:

> Stewart,
>
>   Governments are writing open data policies, creating open data
> portals, and adopting the OGL-CA Licence because they want their data to be
> used. There are many benefits for governments to do this. It makes them
> appear more transparent, it supports citizens, businesses  and researchers,
> and it largely relieves them from having to monitor and police the
> licensees of their data (although I suspect that little or no effort was
> ever applied to monitoring licencees).
>
>So we know their intentions, we have a very permissive ‎licence,
> and the chance of OGL-CA licence issues arising are very, very slim. We
> should stop fretting over the OGL-CA derived licences and start mapping.  I
> don't hide inside my home for fear of being struck by lightning and I don't
> refrain from mapping with data that has a very permissive licence. It's not
> a perfect licence but nothing in life ever is perfect.
>
> Best regards,
> Bernie.
>
> Bernie Connors, P.Eng
> Geomatics Engineer and Civil Servant
> New Maryland, NB
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>   Original Message
> From: Stewart C. Russell
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 12:05 AM
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada
>
> Hi Bjenk -
>
> > I am not sure why there is confusion about Ottawa's ODL and it's
> > equivalence to OGL because the information is public but here it is to
> > clarify:
> >
> > "The Open Data License is based on version 2.0 of the “Open Government
> > Licence – Canada” which was developed through public consultation and
> > consultation with other jurisdictions"
>
> I sense your frustration, and understand that this process must be
> trying. But it's partly an artifact of the licence itself.
>
> The Open Government Licence - Canada, version 2.0 (OGL-CA) is compatible
> with OSM's licence. This was confirmed in 2013:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-
> November/005906.html
>
> (Paul Norman tells me that there's an official notice somewhere from
> Government confirming this, but neither he nor I can find it.)
>
> Unfortunately, one trait of the licence inherited from its parent (the
> Open Government Licence United Kingdom 2.0,
> https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/
> )
> is that it is not _reusable_. Here, reusable means that the licence is
> not specific to an organization or jurisdiction. The OGL-CA has Her
> Majesty the Queen in right of Canada baked in as Information Provider.
> No-one but the Federal government can be that Information Provider. So
> even if Municipality of X wished to adopt the “Open Government Licence -
> X” by replacing ‘Canada’ with ‘X’, it would have to make textual changes
> to the licence, and in doing so — and this is the critical part — makes
> a new and different licence from the OGL-CA.
>
> (Paul N. previously suggested that the UK OGL was more reusable, and had
> better CC BY and ODC BY compatibility than OGL-CA.)
>
> So we can't use Ottawa's data under the Federal OGL-CA.
>
> Even with the best intentions, adoption of the OGL-CA results in
> fragmentation. For example, there's the "Open Government Licence –
> Ontario", the "Open Government Licence – Toronto" and the "Open
> Government Licence - Toronto Public Library". All of these, though based
> on OGL-CA, are *different* licences, and necessarily so. Accepting the
> OGL-CA hasn't allowed OSM to automatically accept all the derivatives
> under it.
>
> (It also helps that OSM explicitly has a statement from the Federal
> Government saying that we have permission to use their data. This
> permission does not flow down to provincial or municipal data.)
>
> If one happens to be a government, or a large commercial entity, one can
> muster lawyers to ensure one's continued existence if there's a legal
> challenge. OpenStreetMap doesn't have that luxury. In order to ensure
> continuity of the OSM project, a degree of caution is required.
>
> So while access to open data is valued by the community, it would be
> lovely if someone could pay for all the lawyers needed to go over the
> licences on behalf of OSM/OSMF too. To the best of my knowledge this
> assistance has seldom been forthcoming.
>
> Best Wishes,
> 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] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[Bernie Connors]

Stewart,

      Governments are writing open data policies, creating open data portals, 
and adopting the OGL-CA Licence because they want their data to be used. There 
are many benefits for governments to do this. It makes them appear more 
transparent, it supports citizens, businesses  and researchers, and it largely 
relieves them from having to monitor and police the licensees of their data 
(although I suspect that little or no effort was ever applied to monitoring 
licencees).  

       So we know their intentions, we have a very permissive ‎licence, and the 
chance of OGL-CA licence issues arising are very, very slim. We should stop 
fretting over the OGL-CA derived licences and start mapping.  I don't hide 
inside my home for fear of being struck by lightning and I don't refrain from 
mapping with data that has a very permissive licence. It's not a perfect 
licence but nothing in life ever is perfect. 

Best regards, 
Bernie. 

Bernie Connors, P.Eng 
Geomatics Engineer and Civil Servant 
New Maryland, NB

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
  Original Message  
From: Stewart C. Russell
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 12:05 AM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

Hi Bjenk -

> I am not sure why there is confusion about Ottawa's ODL and it's
> equivalence to OGL because the information is public but here it is to
> clarify:
> 
> "The Open Data License is based on version 2.0 of the “Open Government
> Licence – Canada” which was developed through public consultation and
> consultation with other jurisdictions"

I sense your frustration, and understand that this process must be
trying. But it's partly an artifact of the licence itself.

The Open Government Licence - Canada, version 2.0 (OGL-CA) is compatible
with OSM's licence. This was confirmed in 2013:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-November/005906.html

(Paul Norman tells me that there's an official notice somewhere from
Government confirming this, but neither he nor I can find it.)

Unfortunately, one trait of the licence inherited from its parent (the
Open Government Licence United Kingdom 2.0,
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/)
is that it is not _reusable_. Here, reusable means that the licence is
not specific to an organization or jurisdiction. The OGL-CA has Her
Majesty the Queen in right of Canada baked in as Information Provider.
No-one but the Federal government can be that Information Provider. So
even if Municipality of X wished to adopt the “Open Government Licence -
X” by replacing ‘Canada’ with ‘X’, it would have to make textual changes
to the licence, and in doing so — and this is the critical part — makes
a new and different licence from the OGL-CA.

(Paul N. previously suggested that the UK OGL was more reusable, and had
better CC BY and ODC BY compatibility than OGL-CA.)

So we can't use Ottawa's data under the Federal OGL-CA.

Even with the best intentions, adoption of the OGL-CA results in
fragmentation. For example, there's the "Open Government Licence –
Ontario", the "Open Government Licence – Toronto" and the "Open
Government Licence - Toronto Public Library". All of these, though based
on OGL-CA, are *different* licences, and necessarily so. Accepting the
OGL-CA hasn't allowed OSM to automatically accept all the derivatives
under it.

(It also helps that OSM explicitly has a statement from the Federal
Government saying that we have permission to use their data. This
permission does not flow down to provincial or municipal data.)

If one happens to be a government, or a large commercial entity, one can
muster lawyers to ensure one's continued existence if there's a legal
challenge. OpenStreetMap doesn't have that luxury. In order to ensure
continuity of the OSM project, a degree of caution is required.

So while access to open data is valued by the community, it would be
lovely if someone could pay for all the lawyers needed to go over the
licences on behalf of OSM/OSMF too. To the best of my knowledge this
assistance has seldom been forthcoming.

Best Wishes,
Stewart


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

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

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

[john whelan]

There is another way forward for Stats at the moment and that would be to
use the Statistics Canada address file which is available on the Federal
Government Open Data portal under the Federal Government Open Data
licence.  The addresses are nodes rather than building outlines but there
is nothing to stop building:levels, and postcode etc. being added to a node.

This was the file that Metrolink used to add addresses in the Toronto
area.  It also has the benefit that it uses less storage in the OSM
database.

Cheerio John

On 21 January 2017 at 21:34, john whelan  wrote:

> It's to do with the way government works and is structured.  What you have
> is an official interpretation which carries weight.  Quite a lot of weight.
>
> Essentially both Canada and the UK are run by acts of parliament.  However
> these are normally interpreted by civil servants to keep things running
> smoothly. For example in the UK by an Act of parliament of 1837 bicycles
> are not permitted to  use the sidewalks but administratively you will not
> be prosecuted for cycling on the sidewalk in certain parts of the UK.  The
> act hasn't been repealed but it is simply not enforced.  The decision was
> taken by a civil servant after consultations but is upheld by the
> government.
>
> The day to day running is done by civil servants interpreting the
> minister's wishes or act of Parliament.  There will be discussion and
> debate at a greater depth than either a minister or Parliament have the
> time for and the decision will be recorded together with the reasons for
> and against it.  This can lead to a formal report with a recommendation.
> It is a brave manager or minister who doesn't accept the recommendations.
> Have a look at Yes Minister and you'll see that brave here means foolish.
> There has to be a level of trust between the politicians and the civil
> service for this to work.  The direction is set by the politicians but the
> day to day stuff by the civil servants.  If a civil servant screws up then
> its special assignment time which is the civil service way of terminating
> you.  So an interpretation is not given lightly.
>
> It has taken three or four years of discussion to get this far.  My
> understanding is the City of Ottawa licence actually makes reference to the
> Federal government licence in the FAQ basically because all the expertise,
> hard work and effort on licensing was done at the federal level.
>
> I think in this case you have to rely on civil servants and retired civil
> servants expertise.  Both Bjenk and I are of the opinion, as his his
> manager, that for practical purposes the OGL-CA and the Municipal
> equivalent are identical.  There are a number of CANVEC employees and
> retired employees floating around as well who will have an opinion but I
> think it will be supportive.  The open data manager at Ottawa is also of
> the same opinion.  My casual contacts at TB on the Open Data side are also
> of the same opinion.
>
> My hope is that we can accept Open Data from municipalities that are
> covered by the equivalent of the OGL-CA.  What you seem to be asking for is
> a resolution or vote by each municipality of their councillors before OSM
> can use the data.  This I think is getting towards the unreasonable and
> unwieldy side of things.
>
> Canadian cities would like to encourage their citizens to walk, cycle and
> use public transport.  Tagging which paths maybe used by cycles helps both
> sides.  In Ottawa until I sat down with the cycling specialist and pointed
> out on their cycle maps one path running through a park was on their cycle
> maps and an identical one in the same park wasn't so how was I to know
> which could be used?  I was armed with photos from both paths and of the
> signs, they were identical.  After that the city expanded its official
> cycle path network by many kms.  "The *city of Ottawa* has a vibrant
> *cycling* culture and now boasts over 600 km of multi-use pathways, *bike*
> lanes, off-road paths and paved shoulders"  We need the City to identify
> these so they can be correctly tagged on the map.  Often there are no signs
> on a path to say if it maybe used by cyclists or not.
>
> Metrolink has done a fair bit of address mapping in OSM in support of
> getting people to use public transport.  They're in Toronto by the way.
> Both sides are better off with imported bus stops.
>
> Life was so much simpler when OSM was just a group of cyclists going round
> with GPS devices recording tracks but I think times are changing and there
> are benefits.  The main problem in my mind is controlling the quality of
> data for an import and in its careful merging with existing data.  For the
> City of Ottawa data the quality is reasonably good and some of it is
> already present in the CANVEC data.  The GTFS bus stop position data is far
> better than many American cities because of the automated stop announcement
> system to assist blind or partially sighted 

Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 107, Issue 17

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

Stewart, thank you for providing more details. 

What exactly in Ottawa's new open
Data license (it recently was updated) is a problem for OSM? 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 22, 2017, at 7:00 AM, talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
>talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Stewart C. Russell)
>   2. hebdoOSM Nº 339 10/01/2017-16/01/2017 (weeklyteam)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 23:03:56 -0500
> From: "Stewart C. Russell" 
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada
> Message-ID: <6a9996a6-bed4-d85f-5b73-13dd1766c...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> Hi Bjenk -
> 
>> I am not sure why there is confusion about Ottawa's ODL and it's
>> equivalence to OGL because the information is public but here it is to
>> clarify:
>> 
>> "The Open Data License is based on version 2.0 of the “Open Government
>> Licence – Canada” which was developed through public consultation and
>> consultation with other jurisdictions"
> 
> I sense your frustration, and understand that this process must be
> trying. But it's partly an artifact of the licence itself.
> 
> The Open Government Licence - Canada, version 2.0 (OGL-CA) is compatible
> with OSM's licence. This was confirmed in 2013:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-November/005906.html
> 
> (Paul Norman tells me that there's an official notice somewhere from
> Government confirming this, but neither he nor I can find it.)
> 
> Unfortunately, one trait of the licence inherited from its parent (the
> Open Government Licence United Kingdom 2.0,
> https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/)
> is that it is not _reusable_. Here, reusable means that the licence is
> not specific to an organization or jurisdiction. The OGL-CA has Her
> Majesty the Queen in right of Canada baked in as Information Provider.
> No-one but the Federal government can be that Information Provider. So
> even if Municipality of X wished to adopt the “Open Government Licence -
> X” by replacing ‘Canada’ with ‘X’, it would have to make textual changes
> to the licence, and in doing so — and this is the critical part — makes
> a new and different licence from the OGL-CA.
> 
> (Paul N. previously suggested that the UK OGL was more reusable, and had
> better CC BY and ODC BY compatibility than OGL-CA.)
> 
> So we can't use Ottawa's data under the Federal OGL-CA.
> 
> Even with the best intentions, adoption of the OGL-CA results in
> fragmentation. For example, there's the "Open Government Licence –
> Ontario", the "Open Government Licence – Toronto" and the "Open
> Government Licence - Toronto Public Library". All of these, though based
> on OGL-CA, are *different* licences, and necessarily so. Accepting the
> OGL-CA hasn't allowed OSM to automatically accept all the derivatives
> under it.
> 
> (It also helps that OSM explicitly has a statement from the Federal
> Government saying that we have permission to use their data. This
> permission does not flow down to provincial or municipal data.)
> 
> If one happens to be a government, or a large commercial entity, one can
> muster lawyers to ensure one's continued existence if there's a legal
> challenge. OpenStreetMap doesn't have that luxury. In order to ensure
> continuity of the OSM project, a degree of caution is required.
> 
> So while access to open data is valued by the community, it would be
> lovely if someone could pay for all the lawyers needed to go over the
> licences on behalf of OSM/OSMF too. To the best of my knowledge this
> assistance has seldom been forthcoming.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 00:00:14 -0800 (PST)
> From: weeklyteam 
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: hebdoOSM Nº 339 10/01/2017-16/01/2017
> Message-ID: <5884668e.d5091c0a.30ed4.d...@mx.google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Bonjour,
> 
> Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 339 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
> en français. Un condensé à retrouver à:
> 
> http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/8619/
> 
> Bonne lecture!
> 
> hebdoOSM?
> Qui?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
> Où?: 
> 

hebdoOSM Nº 339 10/01/2017-16/01/2017

[weeklyteam]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 339 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître en 
français. Un condensé à retrouver à:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/8619/

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