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

[Alan Richards]

Exactly. Local governments are using this license presumably because the
federal government has gone to the work of creating it. The intention of
all these bodies is to release the data for public use, the license is to
cover them from lawsuits.

In New West in fact, they are having an innovation week and hackathon in
February with the goal of hacking together interesting projects around the
Open Data the city releases. Sadly at the moment it seems I can't use this
data for OSM without getting explicit permission from the city.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:54 PM, James  wrote:

> The only differences I could see is with the province of quebec (OGL-QC),
> but they publish their data under CC-BY 4.0 so we just need to ask for
> their approval to mark refs on contributors page (indirect reference which
> CC-BY requires)
>
> I think it would be logical for other provinces(excluding Quebec, because
> they do their own thing) to follow what the federal goverment has put in
> place in terms of open data. Obviously they need to replace federal with
> municipal, but this shouldnt change the license in itself that allows us to
> copy, create, distribute and derive.
>
> If cities are putting their data on public portals it's obviously so the
> public will use it, instead of it sitting there doing nothing.
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2017 3:30 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:
>
>> I'm under the impression that we are talking about two things.
>>
>> The first is the Open Data licence which I think we are agreed is roughly
>> the same except that BC governments reference the BC privacy law, the
>> Ontario ones the Ontario privacy law and the Federal Government references
>> the Federal Government privacy law which is what you might expect.
>>
>> The differences to me are minor.
>>
>> The second is Paul's letter from a Federal Government civil servant that
>> I shall call a letter of interpretation, and it's this letter that makes
>> Paul very comfortable with the Federal Government Open Data.
>>
>> Unfortunately we have been talking licence so the assumption was made
>> that the BC government /Vancouver Open Data licence was also acceptable and
>> my understanding is some data has been imported and accepted.
>>
>> I do not believe the differences between the BC and Ontario privacy laws
>> are that great that one is acceptable and one is not.
>>
>> If all the Canadian Open Data licences are deemed to be unacceptable what
>> do we do about the data that has been imported?  This includes the CANVEC
>> data.
>>
>> My interest is in the Ottawa Bus stops and I have been working with the
>> City of Ottawa for some years to make them available off line on a tablet /
>> phone.  Somewhere in the City of Ottawa's official web site is a link to
>> this work.  My concern is what will tomorrow bring.  Based on the
>> discussions in talk-ca and on the work done analyzing the Federal
>> Government's Open Data licence before the Metro link address import my
>> impression was we had accepted the Canadian version of the Open Data
>> licence.  These Ottawa Bus stops are now based on OSM data and have been
>> since the discussion on talk-ca last year.
>>
>> Are we seriously saying the data that Metrolink imported should now be
>> removed?
>>
>> The uncertainty, the on / off on acceptence of the Open Data side of
>> things does make life difficult.  Should we be using a different platform
>> for Open Data?
>>
>> If I sidetrack to the Ottawa import process essentially the building
>> outlines are brought into a JOSM layer then using the Bing image layer to
>> confirm they are brought into OSM manually.  My understanding is any
>> building outlines that clash with an existing building in OSM daily dump
>> have been removed from the import file.  Any added in the previous 24 hours
>> can be handled by the manual process.  This is quite different to an
>> earlier import.
>>
>> Thoughts and clarification please.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 25 Jan 2017 2:43 pm, "Alan Richards"  wrote:
>>
>>> Most BC cities seem to be using a version of the OGL-BC now as well.
>>> This is similar to the OGL-CA with references to BC privacy and FOI laws,
>>> similar to the Ontario changes mentioned earlier.
>>>
>>> This business of having to get explicit permission for each dataset from
>>> each government entity is a bit ridiculous when the intent of this license
>>> in the first place was to avoid this.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Blake Girardot 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:

 > The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on
 top of
 > the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
 incompatible.

 Hi Paul,

 The above sounds like an interpretation of the answer, not the actual
 answer itself.

 Could you share the 

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

[James]

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

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

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


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

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

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

[john whelan]

I'm under the impression that we are talking about two things.

The first is the Open Data licence which I think we are agreed is roughly
the same except that BC governments reference the BC privacy law, the
Ontario ones the Ontario privacy law and the Federal Government references
the Federal Government privacy law which is what you might expect.

The differences to me are minor.

The second is Paul's letter from a Federal Government civil servant that I
shall call a letter of interpretation, and it's this letter that makes Paul
very comfortable with the Federal Government Open Data.

Unfortunately we have been talking licence so the assumption was made that
the BC government /Vancouver Open Data licence was also acceptable and my
understanding is some data has been imported and accepted.

I do not believe the differences between the BC and Ontario privacy laws
are that great that one is acceptable and one is not.

If all the Canadian Open Data licences are deemed to be unacceptable what
do we do about the data that has been imported?  This includes the CANVEC
data.

My interest is in the Ottawa Bus stops and I have been working with the
City of Ottawa for some years to make them available off line on a tablet /
phone.  Somewhere in the City of Ottawa's official web site is a link to
this work.  My concern is what will tomorrow bring.  Based on the
discussions in talk-ca and on the work done analyzing the Federal
Government's Open Data licence before the Metro link address import my
impression was we had accepted the Canadian version of the Open Data
licence.  These Ottawa Bus stops are now based on OSM data and have been
since the discussion on talk-ca last year.

Are we seriously saying the data that Metrolink imported should now be
removed?

The uncertainty, the on / off on acceptence of the Open Data side of things
does make life difficult.  Should we be using a different platform for Open
Data?

If I sidetrack to the Ottawa import process essentially the building
outlines are brought into a JOSM layer then using the Bing image layer to
confirm they are brought into OSM manually.  My understanding is any
building outlines that clash with an existing building in OSM daily dump
have been removed from the import file.  Any added in the previous 24 hours
can be handled by the manual process.  This is quite different to an
earlier import.

Thoughts and clarification please.

Thanks

Cheerio John

On 25 Jan 2017 2:43 pm, "Alan Richards"  wrote:

> Most BC cities seem to be using a version of the OGL-BC now as well. This
> is similar to the OGL-CA with references to BC privacy and FOI laws,
> similar to the Ontario changes mentioned earlier.
>
> This business of having to get explicit permission for each dataset from
> each government entity is a bit ridiculous when the intent of this license
> in the first place was to avoid this.
>
> Alan
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Blake Girardot 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>>
>> > The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top
>> of
>> > the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
>> incompatible.
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> The above sounds like an interpretation of the answer, not the actual
>> answer itself.
>>
>> Could you share the actual inquiry and response so we can all learn
>> from it and understand how it requires additional obligations?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> blake
>>
>>
>> --
>> 
>> Blake Girardot
>> HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot
>> skype: jblakegirardot
>> Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> 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

[Alan Richards]

Most BC cities seem to be using a version of the OGL-BC now as well. This
is similar to the OGL-CA with references to BC privacy and FOI laws,
similar to the Ontario changes mentioned earlier.

This business of having to get explicit permission for each dataset from
each government entity is a bit ridiculous when the intent of this license
in the first place was to avoid this.

Alan

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Blake Girardot  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>
> > The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top
> of
> > the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
> incompatible.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> The above sounds like an interpretation of the answer, not the actual
> answer itself.
>
> Could you share the actual inquiry and response so we can all learn
> from it and understand how it requires additional obligations?
>
> Cheers,
> blake
>
>
> --
> 
> Blake Girardot
> HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot
> skype: jblakegirardot
> Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Blake Girardot]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top of
> the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data incompatible.

Hi Paul,

The above sounds like an interpretation of the answer, not the actual
answer itself.

Could you share the actual inquiry and response so we can all learn
from it and understand how it requires additional obligations?

Cheers,
blake


-- 

Blake Girardot
HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot
skype: jblakegirardot
Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/

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

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

[John Marshall]

Paul,

The City add the the building footprints to their open data portal in order
to have it add to OSM.

Also the City of Ottawa uses OSM: http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset
/sledding-hills

Ottawa Hydro which is owned by the City uses OSM. https://hydroottawa
.com/outages/info/outage-centre


Let's move on.


John

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:12 PM, James  wrote:

> The city of Ottawa has the same license as the city of Vancouver:
> http://vancouver.ca/your-government/open-data-catalogue.aspx#tab19099
>
> Which seemed to have been deemed compatible, must we revert all vancouver
> imports as well?
>
> You have even stated that OGL-CA is compatible with ODBL in this mail
> archive:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2013-
> December/007685.html
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:58 PM, James  wrote:
>
>> Paul your answer is not clear. what is it that the license(ODL i'm
>> guessing?) would impose on top of ODBL?
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, john whelan 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So since it is the same license as the Feds which you have a letter of
>>> interpretation saying its fine with the exception of the Ontario Privacy
>>> laws does that mean the fed license is to be written off as well?
>>>
>>> Pity as I like my bus stops and CANVEC highways.
>>>
>>> Cheerio John
>>>
>>> On 24 January 2017 at 20:38, Paul Norman  wrote:
>>>
 On 1/21/2017 3:11 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

 On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote:

 Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from the
 same source and the same licence.  I think I might have included one pitch
 sport soccer.  The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was I must confess
 taken from their open data source.


 I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll
 have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them
 all the time.


 The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top
 of the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
 incompatible.

 I have gotten back to them with some additional questions which might
 offer a way forwards and clarify the problems. If I can't get anywhere
 we'll have to decide what to do, but it will probably mean we can write off
 the City of Ottawa as a potential data source.

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


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

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

[James]

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

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

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

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:58 PM, James  wrote:

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



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

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

[James]

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

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

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


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

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

[john whelan]

So since it is the same license as the Feds which you have a letter of
interpretation saying its fine with the exception of the Ontario Privacy
laws does that mean the fed license is to be written off as well?

Pity as I like my bus stops and CANVEC highways.

Cheerio John

On 24 January 2017 at 20:38, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 1/21/2017 3:11 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>
> On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote:
>
> Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from the
> same source and the same licence.  I think I might have included one pitch
> sport soccer.  The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was I must confess
> taken from their open data source.
>
>
> I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll
> have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them
> all the time.
>
>
> The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top of
> the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data incompatible.
>
> I have gotten back to them with some additional questions which might
> offer a way forwards and clarify the problems. If I can't get anywhere
> we'll have to decide what to do, but it will probably mean we can write off
> the City of Ottawa as a potential data source.
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Paul Norman]

On 1/21/2017 3:11 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote:
Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from 
the same source and the same licence.  I think I might have included 
one pitch sport soccer.  The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer 
was I must confess taken from their open data source.


I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll 
have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to 
them all the time. 


The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top 
of the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data 
incompatible.


I have gotten back to them with some additional questions which might 
offer a way forwards and clarify the problems. If I can't get anywhere 
we'll have to decide what to do, but it will probably mean we can write 
off the City of Ottawa as a potential data source.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

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

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

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

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

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

> On 2017-01-23 01:54 AM, Denis Carriere wrote:
> > There's been a lot of discussion on the license, however has anyone read
> > the documentation on the import yet?
>
> Read it? My mucky paw-prints are all over the edit history of the
> article and its talk page. So I know I've read it, at least.
>
> Couple of things:
>
> 1.  There are still some lurking imported data that the previous
> edits left behind. This could have been due to the reversion
> process
> stopping/failing. An example is the chunk of address nodes around Bank &
> Walkley, such as
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4432919584/history#map=
> 17/45.36977/-75.66044
>
> Is there a decision on what needs to be done to these data?
>
>
> 2.  Does the import process still intend to move (manually?) the
> address points from the lot centres to the building centroids?
> While
> this gives StatCan their building addresses, it does mean that OSM will
> create its own variant of the Ottawa address file that won't align with
> any other data set.
>
>
> 3.  Just to check: the address nodes will only have the
> house number, street and (optionally) unit? The city, province and
> country tags are superfluous because of boundary relations. If StatCan
> want this, we should show them how to do a query that pulls in spatial
> relations.
>
>
> 4.  (weak attempt at humour) The decision to filter out
> outbuildings is, frankly, shedist. A world without huts and
> bothies is
> not one I would wish to live in.
>
>
>  Stewart “Two Sheds” Russell
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



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

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-01-23 01:54 AM, Denis Carriere wrote:
> There's been a lot of discussion on the license, however has anyone read
> the documentation on the import yet?

Read it? My mucky paw-prints are all over the edit history of the
article and its talk page. So I know I've read it, at least.

Couple of things:

1.  There are still some lurking imported data that the previous
edits left behind. This could have been due to the reversion process
stopping/failing. An example is the chunk of address nodes around Bank &
Walkley, such as

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4432919584/history#map=17/45.36977/-75.66044

Is there a decision on what needs to be done to these data?


2.  Does the import process still intend to move (manually?) the
address points from the lot centres to the building centroids? While
this gives StatCan their building addresses, it does mean that OSM will
create its own variant of the Ottawa address file that won't align with
any other data set.


3.  Just to check: the address nodes will only have the
house number, street and (optionally) unit? The city, province and
country tags are superfluous because of boundary relations. If StatCan
want this, we should show them how to do a query that pulls in spatial
relations.


4.  (weak attempt at humour) The decision to filter out
outbuildings is, frankly, shedist. A world without huts and bothies is
not one I would wish to live in.


 Stewart “Two Sheds” Russell


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

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

[Steve Singer]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Stewart C. Russell wrote:


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


It isn't obvious to me why any of these changes would make the Ottawa 
license incompatible with OSM.




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.



OSM as a project needs to be able to take a clear license and decide if 
using data covered from that license is safe to use without having to really 
on special permissions. If we decide that that license is incompatible for 
reason X and we need special permission then we might decide to get that.



I'm finding it hard to see why the terms of either OGL-CA or the 
Ottawa license are incompatible.





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

[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 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] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[john whelan]

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 people.  They went out and very
carefully checked the position of each and every bus stop with a high
accuracy GPS system so it would be correct.

There is another issue and that is volume of data.  If you are using OSM
data on a phone off line the smaller the database the faster it is but that
is a different kettle of fish.  At least if its there you can filter out
those things you don't need.

My suggestion is both the OGL-CA and the municipality equivalent should be
acceptable to OSM based on the interpretations you have from civil servants.

Cheerio John




On 21 January 2017 at 19:37, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 1/21/2017 4:34 PM, john whelan wrote:
>
>> What you have is an interpretation of the Federal 

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

[James]

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

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

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

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

[Paul Norman]

On 1/21/2017 4:34 PM, john whelan wrote:
What you have is an interpretation of the Federal Government license.  
From my background in the civil service my understanding is for a 
statement it would have to be over a minister's signature or by act of 
parliament.  No one else has the authority unless it is delegated.


If that's true and we can't rely on a statement from a government 
employee to interpret their license, then we can no longer use OGL-CA data.


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

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

[john whelan]

What you have is an interpretation of the Federal Government license.  From
my background in the civil service my understanding is for a statement it
would have to be over a minister's signature or by act of parliament.  No
one else has the authority unless it is delegated.

Cheerio John

On 21 January 2017 at 18:53, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 1/21/2017 3:48 PM, James wrote:
>
> It is, the thing they changed was federal references to municipal ones.
> Which is why i'm confused the license is "not compatible"
>
>
> We have a statement from the Federal government for their data under their
> license. The Federal government cannot make a statement about City of
> Ottawa data under the City of Ottawa 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 1/21/2017 3:48 PM, James wrote:
It is, the thing they changed was federal references to municipal 
ones. Which is why i'm confused the license is "not compatible"




We have a statement from the Federal government for their data under 
their license. The Federal government cannot make a statement about City 
of Ottawa data under the City of Ottawa license.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

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

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

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

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

[john whelan]

>I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll
have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them
all the time.

My understanding is the City of Ottawa one is based on the Federal
Government one.

Cheerio John

On 21 January 2017 at 18:11, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote:
>
>> Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from the
>> same source and the same licence.  I think I might have included one pitch
>> sport soccer.  The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was I must confess
>> taken from their open data source.
>>
>
> I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll
> have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them
> all the time.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Paul Norman]

On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote:
Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from 
the same source and the same licence.  I think I might have included 
one pitch sport soccer.  The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was 
I must confess taken from their open data source.


I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll 
have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to 
them all the time.


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

[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

A couple of things to consider and what follows is in my name and I do not 
speak for StatCan:

Open Data is the way Governments are going to release data to be used by the 
public freely. Many are working hard through consultations to further these 
initiatives precisely because they are the sole medium by which Governments are 
going to release data that normally the public would never have access to.

Open Data for Governments are released under licenses, which were modelled 
after extensive consultations to be as permissive as they can be under the 
responsibility of these jurisdictions. OGL-Canada was done to allow Canadians 
and anyone really to use data from Federal Government and that allows anyone to 
not have to go to a specific group or owner of datasets in Federal Departments 
and get a personal commitment and permission, which is highly unlikely: no one 
has that authority. Open Data programs are a wonderful progress and medium 
which we will all work to support and enhance.

The City of Ottawa has gone through extensive work to revise their Open Data 
licence so that it is modelled after OGL-Canada as it is stated in their FAQ. 
The Federal license might become a standard for Canada in the future.

As for the dataset released yesterday: urban buildings, it was released after 
months of negotiations between the City and StatCan and an internal 
consultation at the City of Ottawa with lawyers experts in Open Data. They were 
all supportive of the concepts and principles behind Open data and this dataset 
was released precisely in support of this project which is a collaboration 
between municipalities, StatCan and OSM community. This is entirely for the 
benefit of OSM.

Also, other Departments and Municipalities are joining the discussion and 
interest is rising for OSM. Open Data initiatives are going to be the main 
vehicle to provide data to the public.

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

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

[James]

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

Have a nice weekend

On Jan 20, 2017 9:56 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:

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

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

[john whelan]

Essentially OSM is not well set up to handle these sort of issues.
Normally interpretations are base on custom and practice.

The wording is slightly different between the two licences.  OSM decision
making for local matters is normally left to local mappers.

So the decision to allow the import is an Ottawa mapper decision but
whether the licenses are compatible is not.

There is and has been minor imports of Open Data in Ottawa for some time.
The bus stops for example.  So custom and practice say if the bus stop
import was permitted then data from the same source under the same licence
should also be permitted.

It's a little like dealing with the native people of Canada.  There are
500,000 of them with 500,000 different opinions.  Trying to reach an
agreement is very difficult.

Realistically imports happen in OSM everyday.  They aren't always announced
in talk-ca first.

Cheerio John

On 20 Jan 2017 9:01 pm, "James"  wrote:

> Is OGL-CA not compatible with osm?
>
> On Jan 20, 2017 8:17 PM, "Paul Norman"  wrote:
>
>> On 1/20/2017 3:22 PM, James wrote:
>>
>> Old link to an old wiki. Please see:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/
>> Import/Plan#Permission
>>
>> That says Ottawa gave some data to Stats Canada in 2016, not that their
>> data can be reused under the ODbL. I've sent an email to them asking for
>> permission. We need this because we're getting the data directly from them.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

Is OGL-CA not compatible with osm?

On Jan 20, 2017 8:17 PM, "Paul Norman"  wrote:

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

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

[john whelan]

Did you include permission for the bus stops as well?  They are from the
same source and the same licence.  I think I might have included one pitch
sport soccer.  The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was I must confess
taken from their open data source.

Thanks John

On 20 Jan 2017 8:17 pm, "Paul Norman"  wrote:

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

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

[Paul Norman]

On 1/20/2017 3:22 PM, James wrote:

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

That says Ottawa gave some data to Stats Canada in 2016, not that their 
data can be reused under the ODbL. I've sent an email to them asking for 
permission. We need this because we're getting the data directly from them.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

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


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

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

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

[James]

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

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

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


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

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

[john whelan]

We spent four years working with Treasury Board and Ottawa on the Open Data
Licence and they took extensive consultations. Given four lawyers I'm sure
one will say it isn't compatible but the feeling at Treasury Board was it
is and the Ottawa license is based on the TB license.  This particular data
set has been reviewed by a City of Ottawa lawyer and my impression was they
were comfortable.  That was one reason it took so long to get it formally
released.

It some ways this has become a philosophical discussion should Open Street
Map accept anything that has been done with a handheld GPS.  There are many
who think this is the correct way forward.  However there are others such
as myself who think that people who use the map should be considered.  I
certainly feel there is value in having the Ottawa Bus stops in.

There are many instances in OSM of imported data, a number of American
cities have their building outlines in for example.  I don't think this is
particularly different.  We might discuss if it adds value to the map but
that one is very difficult.  Where do you draw the line.  I'm not very
interested in rivers does that mean they should not be mapped by anyone?

In Africa I see all sorts of imported data some of very dubious quality.
Sometimes it does seem to me that there is one rule for Ottawa mappers and
quite another for the rest of OSM.

Overall I think Stats will introduce a number of new mappers.  They are
doing some interesting things by taking the .OSM file and feeding it into
R, a statistical package. R.org in case anyone is interested in looking it
up.  I've seen the first results and they look interesting.  I've had
feedback from someone in the equivalent of CIDA in Germany that they think
it might well be a very effective low cost tool for Town Planning in Africa.

My biggest concern is how the import is handled and merged with existing
data.  I think these concerns have been addressed on paper but only time
will tell exactly how it will unfold.

Cheerio John

On 20 January 2017 at 17:44, Paul Norman  wrote:

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

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

[Paul Norman]

On 1/20/2017 12:40 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) wrote:


Hello everyone,

Big news, the City of Ottawa has released the footprint of over 
325,000 buildings on their open data portal in support to the project 
with Statistics Canada and the OSM community.


We are very grateful for the amazing collaboration with the City of 
Ottawa on this pilot project and are very pleased for this amazing 
contribution.


Link:

http://data.ottawa.ca/en/dataset/urban-buildings



Is there a statement anywhere from Ottawa saying that their license is 
compatible with the ODbL? All I can find is 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Permission 
which seems to be about their previous license.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

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


On Jan 20, 2017 4:55 PM, "James"  wrote:

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

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

[James]

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

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

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

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

[john whelan]

We aren't talking about removing all the bus stops in Ottawa again are we?

I thought we'd been through the licensing issues before and for those of us
without cars knowing the bus stop number is extremely useful.

Thanks

Cheerio John

On 20 January 2017 at 16:06, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

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

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

[James]

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

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

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


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

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

[Martijn van Exel]

The license link is broken, is it this one? 
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0
 


Martijn van Exel

> On Jan 20, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
>  
> Big news, the City of Ottawa has released the footprint of over 325,000 
> buildings on their open data portal in support to the project with Statistics 
> Canada and the OSM community.
>  
> We are very grateful for the amazing collaboration with the City of Ottawa on 
> this pilot project and are very pleased for this amazing contribution.
>  
> Link: 
> http://data.ottawa.ca/en/dataset/urban-buildings 
> 
>  
>  
>  
> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>  
> Unit head | Chef de sous-section
> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab d’exploration et 
> intégration de données (LEID)
> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les 
> entreprises
> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
> (343) 998-3004
>  
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
> 
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)]

Hello everyone,

Big news, the City of Ottawa has released the footprint of over 325,000 
buildings on their open data portal in support to the project with Statistics 
Canada and the OSM community.

We are very grateful for the amazing collaboration with the City of Ottawa on 
this pilot project and are very pleased for this amazing contribution.

Link:
http://data.ottawa.ca/en/dataset/urban-buildings



Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD

Unit head | Chef de sous-section
Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab d'exploration et intégration 
de données (LEID)
Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les 
entreprises
Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
(343) 998-3004

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

[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada, Launching!

[Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)]

Hello,

We are now live and launching! Thanks everyone for your help and let's see how 
this goes!

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/crowdsourcing

Bonjour,

Nous sommes en ligne! Le projet est lancé!

Merci à tous pour votre aide et voyons comment ça se déroulera !

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/fra/approcheparticipative


Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD

Unit head | Chef de sous-section
Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab d'exploration et intégration 
de données (LEID)
Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les 
entreprises
Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
(343) 998-3004

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

[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada - Outreach launch

[Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)]

Hello everyone,

We are launching the outreach tomorrow. Canadians will be made aware of the 
project.

As soon as the Webpage is live, I will add the link to the OSM Canada wiki in 
the section for the project.

This is giving us another month to work out some details. Do not hesitate to 
raise anything you might see so we can make some changes if it's possible.

I would like to start a wiki page for documentation that we can also link to. 
There was one that was started if I remember, I will have to go back in my 
messages.  Some of us are going to meet to discuss the import process for the 
footprints soon.

It's been very busy since my return from vacation so, I am sorry for the lack 
of updates recently!

Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD

Unit head | Chef de sous-section
Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab d'exploration et intégration 
de données (LEID)
Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les 
entreprises
Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
(343) 998-3004

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

[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)]

Hello everyone,

I am back from vacation and doing my best to catch up! Things are moving fast 
so I will jump right into some updates:

I added the project on the OSM Canada wiki page on both English and French page.
I would like to add a separate page where we will document the project in 
detail and we can add the link in the subsection for the project.

I also made a small change to the French page to make both language pages be 
more similar. The section for Canada sub projects was just called "Objectifs". 
I hope this is ok with everyone!

I have more updates to give but I will come back later!

Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD

Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab d'exploration et intégration 
de données (LEID)
Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les 
entreprises
Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
(343) 998-3004

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

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

[Adam Martin]

That would be fine, I'd figure, as you didn't use Canada Post to acquire
the address. The business website is designed, in principle, to allow the
free use of the information as it wants customers to find them and use
their services.

This is much like adding your own address. Can't be any argument with that
- or with adding ones from people you know. Again, you didn't use Canada
Post's database to get this information.

On Aug 10, 2016 5:00 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > So it is perfectly fine to add the street number and name, just not the
> postal code from an official source.
>
> I assume if the address has a web site associated with it that has the
> postcode on it then that is an acceptable source?
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 10 August 2016 at 11:03, Kevin Farrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For clarification - Canada Post only owns the postal code, the address
>> itself (123 Main St.) is created and approved by the municipality, so it's
>> their data and they can release that data if they wish to.
>>
>> So it is perfectly fine to add the street number and name, just not the
>> postal code from an official source.
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2016 11:00 AM, "Adam Martin" <s.adam.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Bjenk,
>>>
>>> On the Address data, the Talk-CA group has had several discussions about
>>> it. The problem boils down to Canada Post, which treats the information as
>>> proprietary - they provide any individual going to their site the right to
>>> lookup an address in order to utilize their service to mail items. The
>>> actual database is theirs and even the postal code on my home is theirs,
>>> I'm just allowed to use it. This all likely has more to do with the fact
>>> that they have a service that links the addresses to mapped locations that
>>> is, of course, available only for those willing to pay for it. If they
>>> allowed OSM to integrate this information, they would lose that revenue
>>> stream.
>>>
>>> Suffice it to say that, apart from an individual adding their address
>>> manually to the map, Canada Post is not about to allow any party to use
>>> that information freely.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
>>> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The postal code subject is interesting for many reasons. I read that
>>>> France has released a National address database, publically and free.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There must be a way we can follow that example.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am still catching up, haha!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bjenk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
>>>> *Sent:* August-06-16 7:23 PM
>>>> *To:* Laura O'Grady <la...@lauraogrady.ca>
>>>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>; Ellefsen,
>>>> Bjenk (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>; Stewart C. Russell <
>>>> scr...@gmail.com>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The postcode battle is being fought on the Open Data side.   There is
>>>> an open data mailing list whose name escapes me where they have been
>>>> playing for years to get the postcode data including access to information
>>>> requests.
>>>>
>>>> Tracy at Carleton University is well connected on the Open Data side
>>>> and the postcode saga.  There is some hope now that the UK post office has
>>>> made the UK ones available.
>>>>
>>>> For the moment many commercial companies do list their postcode on
>>>> their web sites and the the commercial buildings that are the ones of
>>>> interest to Stats Canada.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect Bjenk will have fun when he checks his email on Monday
>>>> morning when he arrives in the office.  We've been quite chatty over the
>>>> weekend.
>>>>
>>>> Cheerio John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6 Aug 2016 7:02 pm, "Laura O'Grady" <la...@lauraogrady.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There's a form [1] requesting this data set. Not sure if posting a
>>>> request will help as we know this has been going on for year

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

[john whelan]

> So it is perfectly fine to add the street number and name, just not the
postal code from an official source.

I assume if the address has a web site associated with it that has the
postcode on it then that is an acceptable source?

Cheerio John

On 10 August 2016 at 11:03, Kevin Farrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For clarification - Canada Post only owns the postal code, the address
> itself (123 Main St.) is created and approved by the municipality, so it's
> their data and they can release that data if they wish to.
>
> So it is perfectly fine to add the street number and name, just not the
> postal code from an official source.
>
> On Aug 10, 2016 11:00 AM, "Adam Martin" <s.adam.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Bjenk,
>>
>> On the Address data, the Talk-CA group has had several discussions about
>> it. The problem boils down to Canada Post, which treats the information as
>> proprietary - they provide any individual going to their site the right to
>> lookup an address in order to utilize their service to mail items. The
>> actual database is theirs and even the postal code on my home is theirs,
>> I'm just allowed to use it. This all likely has more to do with the fact
>> that they have a service that links the addresses to mapped locations that
>> is, of course, available only for those willing to pay for it. If they
>> allowed OSM to integrate this information, they would lose that revenue
>> stream.
>>
>> Suffice it to say that, apart from an individual adding their address
>> manually to the map, Canada Post is not about to allow any party to use
>> that information freely.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
>> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> The postal code subject is interesting for many reasons. I read that
>>> France has released a National address database, publically and free.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There must be a way we can follow that example.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am still catching up, haha!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bjenk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* August-06-16 7:23 PM
>>> *To:* Laura O'Grady <la...@lauraogrady.ca>
>>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>; Ellefsen,
>>> Bjenk (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>; Stewart C. Russell <
>>> scr...@gmail.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The postcode battle is being fought on the Open Data side.   There is an
>>> open data mailing list whose name escapes me where they have been playing
>>> for years to get the postcode data including access to information requests.
>>>
>>> Tracy at Carleton University is well connected on the Open Data side and
>>> the postcode saga.  There is some hope now that the UK post office has made
>>> the UK ones available.
>>>
>>> For the moment many commercial companies do list their postcode on their
>>> web sites and the the commercial buildings that are the ones of interest to
>>> Stats Canada.
>>>
>>> I suspect Bjenk will have fun when he checks his email on Monday morning
>>> when he arrives in the office.  We've been quite chatty over the weekend.
>>>
>>> Cheerio John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Aug 2016 7:02 pm, "Laura O'Grady" <la...@lauraogrady.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> There's a form [1] requesting this data set. Not sure if posting a
>>> request will help as we know this has been going on for years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can get the Forward Sortation Areas in a boundary file [2], which
>>> can be exported from the db. I noticed the disclaimer, "This data includes
>>> information copied with permission from Canada Post Corporation". But of
>>> course this is incomplete. I wonder if it's the latter 3 characters,
>>> the Local Delivery Unit, which can pinpoint to individual households is
>>> being suppressed for privacy reasons.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As an academic we battled Stats Can for years for access to data that
>>> was paid for by taxpayer dollars. Eventually we won. So there's a precedent
>>> of sorts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Has anyone tried filing a freedom of information request for the postal
>>> codes?
>>&g

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

[Kevin Farrugia]

For clarification - Canada Post only owns the postal code, the address
itself (123 Main St.) is created and approved by the municipality, so it's
their data and they can release that data if they wish to.

So it is perfectly fine to add the street number and name, just not the
postal code from an official source.

On Aug 10, 2016 11:00 AM, "Adam Martin" <s.adam.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Bjenk,
>
> On the Address data, the Talk-CA group has had several discussions about
> it. The problem boils down to Canada Post, which treats the information as
> proprietary - they provide any individual going to their site the right to
> lookup an address in order to utilize their service to mail items. The
> actual database is theirs and even the postal code on my home is theirs,
> I'm just allowed to use it. This all likely has more to do with the fact
> that they have a service that links the addresses to mapped locations that
> is, of course, available only for those willing to pay for it. If they
> allowed OSM to integrate this information, they would lose that revenue
> stream.
>
> Suffice it to say that, apart from an individual adding their address
> manually to the map, Canada Post is not about to allow any party to use
> that information freely.
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
>> The postal code subject is interesting for many reasons. I read that
>> France has released a National address database, publically and free.
>>
>>
>>
>> There must be a way we can follow that example.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am still catching up, haha!
>>
>>
>>
>> Bjenk
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* August-06-16 7:23 PM
>> *To:* Laura O'Grady <la...@lauraogrady.ca>
>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>; Ellefsen, Bjenk
>> (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>; Stewart C. Russell <
>> scr...@gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> The postcode battle is being fought on the Open Data side.   There is an
>> open data mailing list whose name escapes me where they have been playing
>> for years to get the postcode data including access to information requests.
>>
>> Tracy at Carleton University is well connected on the Open Data side and
>> the postcode saga.  There is some hope now that the UK post office has made
>> the UK ones available.
>>
>> For the moment many commercial companies do list their postcode on their
>> web sites and the the commercial buildings that are the ones of interest to
>> Stats Canada.
>>
>> I suspect Bjenk will have fun when he checks his email on Monday morning
>> when he arrives in the office.  We've been quite chatty over the weekend.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6 Aug 2016 7:02 pm, "Laura O'Grady" <la...@lauraogrady.ca> wrote:
>>
>> There's a form [1] requesting this data set. Not sure if posting a
>> request will help as we know this has been going on for years.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can get the Forward Sortation Areas in a boundary file [2], which can
>> be exported from the db. I noticed the disclaimer, "This data includes
>> information copied with permission from Canada Post Corporation". But of
>> course this is incomplete. I wonder if it's the latter 3 characters,
>> the Local Delivery Unit, which can pinpoint to individual households is
>> being suppressed for privacy reasons.
>>
>>
>>
>> As an academic we battled Stats Can for years for access to data that was
>> paid for by taxpayer dollars. Eventually we won. So there's a precedent of
>> sorts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Has anyone tried filing a freedom of information request for the postal
>> codes?
>>
>>
>>
>> Laura
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Laura O'Grady
>>
>> la...@lauraogrady.ca
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] http://open.canada.ca/en/suggested-datasets/postal-code-database
>>
>> [2] https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/geo/
>> bound-limit/bound-limit-2011-eng.cfm
>>
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2016, at 2:12 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ​I understand the current intent is data.gc.ca
>>
>> There is actually a lot of postcode data in Ottawa adhresses as it stands
>> especially for commercial buildings.  Don't hold your breath for Canada
>>

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

[Adam Martin]

Hey Bjenk,

On the Address data, the Talk-CA group has had several discussions about
it. The problem boils down to Canada Post, which treats the information as
proprietary - they provide any individual going to their site the right to
lookup an address in order to utilize their service to mail items. The
actual database is theirs and even the postal code on my home is theirs,
I'm just allowed to use it. This all likely has more to do with the fact
that they have a service that links the addresses to mapped locations that
is, of course, available only for those willing to pay for it. If they
allowed OSM to integrate this information, they would lose that revenue
stream.

Suffice it to say that, apart from an individual adding their address
manually to the map, Canada Post is not about to allow any party to use
that information freely.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:

> The postal code subject is interesting for many reasons. I read that
> France has released a National address database, publically and free.
>
>
>
> There must be a way we can follow that example.
>
>
>
> I am still catching up, haha!
>
>
>
> Bjenk
>
>
>
> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* August-06-16 7:23 PM
> *To:* Laura O'Grady <la...@lauraogrady.ca>
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>; Ellefsen, Bjenk
> (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>; Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com
> >
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
>
>
>
> The postcode battle is being fought on the Open Data side.   There is an
> open data mailing list whose name escapes me where they have been playing
> for years to get the postcode data including access to information requests.
>
> Tracy at Carleton University is well connected on the Open Data side and
> the postcode saga.  There is some hope now that the UK post office has made
> the UK ones available.
>
> For the moment many commercial companies do list their postcode on their
> web sites and the the commercial buildings that are the ones of interest to
> Stats Canada.
>
> I suspect Bjenk will have fun when he checks his email on Monday morning
> when he arrives in the office.  We've been quite chatty over the weekend.
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 6 Aug 2016 7:02 pm, "Laura O'Grady" <la...@lauraogrady.ca> wrote:
>
> There's a form [1] requesting this data set. Not sure if posting a request
> will help as we know this has been going on for years.
>
>
>
> You can get the Forward Sortation Areas in a boundary file [2], which can
> be exported from the db. I noticed the disclaimer, "This data includes
> information copied with permission from Canada Post Corporation". But of
> course this is incomplete. I wonder if it's the latter 3 characters,
> the Local Delivery Unit, which can pinpoint to individual households is
> being suppressed for privacy reasons.
>
>
>
> As an academic we battled Stats Can for years for access to data that was
> paid for by taxpayer dollars. Eventually we won. So there's a precedent of
> sorts.
>
>
>
> Has anyone tried filing a freedom of information request for the postal
> codes?
>
>
>
> Laura
>
>
>
> -
>
> Laura O'Grady
>
> la...@lauraogrady.ca
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] http://open.canada.ca/en/suggested-datasets/postal-code-database
>
> [2] https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/
> geo/bound-limit/bound-limit-2011-eng.cfm
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2016, at 2:12 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ​I understand the current intent is data.gc.ca
>
> There is actually a lot of postcode data in Ottawa adhresses as it stands
> especially for commercial buildings.  Don't hold your breath for Canada
> Post and postcodes.
>
> Some attributes they would like at the moment I can't see how a mapper
> would map them from physically looking at the building.
>
> If nothing else it should clean up the map.  For that reason it would be
> nice to be able to pull chunks into JOSM and go over it looking for obvious
> errors and spelling mistakes in tags.  Maperitive has the ability to
> extract the tags and export them in spreadsheet format which is good for
> this sort of thing but you need a source to feed it.​
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 6 August 2016 at 12:38, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi John - some great points here.
>
> > My understanding is currently he’s looking getting hold of the City of
> > Ottawa building outline data and making it available to OpenStreetMap
> > wi

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

[Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)]

The postal code subject is interesting for many reasons. I read that France has 
released a National address database, publically and free.

There must be a way we can follow that example.

I am still catching up, haha!

Bjenk

From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
Sent: August-06-16 7:23 PM
To: Laura O'Grady <la...@lauraogrady.ca>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>; Ellefsen, Bjenk 
(STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>; Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada


The postcode battle is being fought on the Open Data side.   There is an open 
data mailing list whose name escapes me where they have been playing for years 
to get the postcode data including access to information requests.

Tracy at Carleton University is well connected on the Open Data side and the 
postcode saga.  There is some hope now that the UK post office has made the UK 
ones available.

For the moment many commercial companies do list their postcode on their web 
sites and the the commercial buildings that are the ones of interest to Stats 
Canada.

I suspect Bjenk will have fun when he checks his email on Monday morning when 
he arrives in the office.  We've been quite chatty over the weekend.

Cheerio John

On 6 Aug 2016 7:02 pm, "Laura O'Grady" 
<la...@lauraogrady.ca<mailto:la...@lauraogrady.ca>> wrote:
There's a form [1] requesting this data set. Not sure if posting a request will 
help as we know this has been going on for years.

You can get the Forward Sortation Areas in a boundary file [2], which can be 
exported from the db. I noticed the disclaimer, "This data includes information 
copied with permission from Canada Post Corporation". But of course this is 
incomplete. I wonder if it's the latter 3 characters, the Local Delivery Unit, 
which can pinpoint to individual households is being suppressed for privacy 
reasons.

As an academic we battled Stats Can for years for access to data that was paid 
for by taxpayer dollars. Eventually we won. So there's a precedent of sorts.

Has anyone tried filing a freedom of information request for the postal codes?

Laura

-
Laura O'Grady
la...@lauraogrady.ca<mailto:la...@lauraogrady.ca>


[1] http://open.canada.ca/en/suggested-datasets/postal-code-database
[2] 
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/geo/bound-limit/bound-limit-2011-eng.cfm

On Aug 6, 2016, at 2:12 PM, john whelan 
<jwhelan0...@gmail.com<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>> wrote:
​I understand the current intent is data.gc.ca<http://data.gc.ca>

There is actually a lot of postcode data in Ottawa adhresses as it stands 
especially for commercial buildings.  Don't hold your breath for Canada Post 
and postcodes.

Some attributes they would like at the moment I can't see how a mapper would 
map them from physically looking at the building.

If nothing else it should clean up the map.  For that reason it would be nice 
to be able to pull chunks into JOSM and go over it looking for obvious errors 
and spelling mistakes in tags.  Maperitive has the ability to extract the tags 
and export them in spreadsheet format which is good for this sort of thing but 
you need a source to feed it.​


Cheerio John

On 6 August 2016 at 12:38, Stewart C. Russell 
<scr...@gmail.com<mailto:scr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi John - some great points here.

> My understanding is currently he’s looking getting hold of the City of
> Ottawa building outline data and making it available to OpenStreetMap
> without the current license restriction.

This would be wonderful. It would be ideal if the data could be placed
on data.gc.ca<http://data.gc.ca> and use the OGL-CA v2 licence. OSM can't use 
any data
under the City of Ottawa Open Data - Terms of use
<http://ottawa.ca/en/mobile-apps-and-open-data/open-data-terms-use>. I
also have my doubts about the acceptability of the Statistics Canada
Open Licence Agreement <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/reference/licence>.
OGL-CA v2, though, we know to be acceptable.

Also, if there were to be an import, we *must* follow the
Import/Guidelines
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines> or risk having
any new imports deleted. The recent LA building import provides a decent
template, but there are no imports without the Data Working Group having
knowledge of it.

[** Bjenk: if all this seems gibberish, please ping me off-list, and I'd
be happy to have a chat. Despite my previous flippant comments, I think
this is a great project.]

To some more of John's points:

> He’s also asking for the building outline to be tagged with the address
> including postcode.  Which is interesting as currently each node of
> store within a building might have part of the address.

For sure. I looked at the City of Ottawa data, and getting it to mesh
with existing address points and ran

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

[Laura O'Grady]

There's a form [1] requesting this data set. Not sure if posting a request will 
help as we know this has been going on for years.

You can get the Forward Sortation Areas in a boundary file [2], which can be 
exported from the db. I noticed the disclaimer, "This data includes information 
copied with permission from Canada Post Corporation". But of course this is 
incomplete. I wonder if it's the latter 3 characters, the Local Delivery Unit, 
which can pinpoint to individual households is being suppressed for privacy 
reasons.

As an academic we battled Stats Can for years for access to data that was paid 
for by taxpayer dollars. Eventually we won. So there's a precedent of sorts.

Has anyone tried filing a freedom of information request for the postal codes?

Laura

-
Laura O'Grady
la...@lauraogrady.ca


[1] http://open.canada.ca/en/suggested-datasets/postal-code-database
[2] 
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/geo/bound-limit/bound-limit-2011-eng.cfm

> On Aug 6, 2016, at 2:12 PM, john whelan  wrote:
> 
> ​I understand the current intent is data.gc.ca
> 
> There is actually a lot of postcode data in Ottawa adhresses as it stands 
> especially for commercial buildings.  Don't hold your breath for Canada Post 
> and postcodes.
> 
> Some attributes they would like at the moment I can't see how a mapper would 
> map them from physically looking at the building.
> 
> If nothing else it should clean up the map.  For that reason it would be nice 
> to be able to pull chunks into JOSM and go over it looking for obvious errors 
> and spelling mistakes in tags.  Maperitive has the ability to extract the 
> tags and export them in spreadsheet format which is good for this sort of 
> thing but you need a source to feed it.​
> 
> Cheerio John
> 
>> On 6 August 2016 at 12:38, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
>> Hi John - some great points here.
>> 
>> > My understanding is currently he’s looking getting hold of the City of
>> > Ottawa building outline data and making it available to OpenStreetMap
>> > without the current license restriction.
>> 
>> This would be wonderful. It would be ideal if the data could be placed
>> on data.gc.ca and use the OGL-CA v2 licence. OSM can't use any data
>> under the City of Ottawa Open Data - Terms of use
>> . I
>> also have my doubts about the acceptability of the Statistics Canada
>> Open Licence Agreement .
>> OGL-CA v2, though, we know to be acceptable.
>> 
>> Also, if there were to be an import, we *must* follow the
>> Import/Guidelines
>>  or risk having
>> any new imports deleted. The recent LA building import provides a decent
>> template, but there are no imports without the Data Working Group having
>> knowledge of it.
>> 
>> [** Bjenk: if all this seems gibberish, please ping me off-list, and I'd
>> be happy to have a chat. Despite my previous flippant comments, I think
>> this is a great project.]
>> 
>> To some more of John's points:
>> 
>> > He’s also asking for the building outline to be tagged with the address
>> > including postcode.  Which is interesting as currently each node of
>> > store within a building might have part of the address.
>> 
>> For sure. I looked at the City of Ottawa data, and getting it to mesh
>> with existing address points and ranges in OSM is going to be challenging:
>> 
>> * fixing street naming to meet OSM standards (so Ottawa's 991 CARLING
>> AVE would have to become addr:housenumber=991 and addr:street=Carling
>> Avenue). Not impossible, but would need some manual oversight
>> 
>> * Inconsistent application of French to some street names, English to
>> others, and no obvious metadata to distinguish language
>> 
>> * some buildings in mixed-use neighbourhoods will have multiple address
>> points, all containing the same address (eg St Stephen's on Parkdale Ave
>> has three 579 Parkdale Ave nodes)
>> 
>> * some buildings just plain don't have address points nearby (like the
>> Agri-Food Canada Building on Carling Ave)
>> 
>> * rationalizing address points with existing address ranges.
>> 
>> And then there's the postal code problem. If Stat Canada can bring us a
>> licence-compatible data set of full codes that Canada Post *won't* try
>> to sue us over, that would be glorious. I'm not sure we could get enough
>> traction with the general Canadian public to do the "Free the Postcode"
>> initiative like in the UK to make this useful as a crowdsourcing effort.
>> 
>> > … One problem I see arising is a new mapper mapping to the
>> > Stats Canada guide lines using iD changes one or more existing tags.  I
>> > do a fair amount of validation in HOT and some newer mappers either
>> > completely ignore or misunderstand the instructions.
>> 
>> Yes, this can be a problem with newer mappers. There would need to be a
>> careful 

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

[john whelan]

On the clean up side I pulled in osmconvert64 ontario.osm
-b=-76,45.0,-75.7,45.5 -o=ottawa1.osm  so a small chunk of ottawa.  JOSM
validation gave 50 errors and 3,913 warnings.  The ontario map was fairly
recent like yesterday I think. The file is here:

http://www.jatws.org/johnw/ottawa1.zip if any one would like to load it
into JOSM and perhaps clean a few errors up.  I don't seem to be able to
split off the entire city but I can do some chunks if anyone is
interested.  Ideally find the error then down load a fresh tiny bit using
slippy map, correct and upload.

Cheerio John

On 6 August 2016 at 14:12, john whelan  wrote:

> ​I understand the current intent is data.gc.ca
>
> There is actually a lot of postcode data in Ottawa adhresses as it stands
> especially for commercial buildings.  Don't hold your breath for Canada
> Post and postcodes.
>
> Some attributes they would like at the moment I can't see how a mapper
> would map them from physically looking at the building.
>
> If nothing else it should clean up the map.  For that reason it would be
> nice to be able to pull chunks into JOSM and go over it looking for obvious
> errors and spelling mistakes in tags.  Maperitive has the ability to
> extract the tags and export them in spreadsheet format which is good for
> this sort of thing but you need a source to feed it.​
>
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 6 August 2016 at 12:38, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
>
>> Hi John - some great points here.
>>
>> > My understanding is currently he’s looking getting hold of the City of
>> > Ottawa building outline data and making it available to OpenStreetMap
>> > without the current license restriction.
>>
>> This would be wonderful. It would be ideal if the data could be placed
>> on data.gc.ca and use the OGL-CA v2 licence. OSM can't use any data
>> under the City of Ottawa Open Data - Terms of use
>> . I
>> also have my doubts about the acceptability of the Statistics Canada
>> Open Licence Agreement .
>> OGL-CA v2, though, we know to be acceptable.
>>
>> Also, if there were to be an import, we *must* follow the
>> Import/Guidelines
>>  or risk having
>> any new imports deleted. The recent LA building import provides a decent
>> template, but there are no imports without the Data Working Group having
>> knowledge of it.
>>
>> [** Bjenk: if all this seems gibberish, please ping me off-list, and I'd
>> be happy to have a chat. Despite my previous flippant comments, I think
>> this is a great project.]
>>
>> To some more of John's points:
>>
>> > He’s also asking for the building outline to be tagged with the address
>> > including postcode.  Which is interesting as currently each node of
>> > store within a building might have part of the address.
>>
>> For sure. I looked at the City of Ottawa data, and getting it to mesh
>> with existing address points and ranges in OSM is going to be challenging:
>>
>> * fixing street naming to meet OSM standards (so Ottawa's 991 CARLING
>> AVE would have to become addr:housenumber=991 and addr:street=Carling
>> Avenue). Not impossible, but would need some manual oversight
>>
>> * Inconsistent application of French to some street names, English to
>> others, and no obvious metadata to distinguish language
>>
>> * some buildings in mixed-use neighbourhoods will have multiple address
>> points, all containing the same address (eg St Stephen's on Parkdale Ave
>> has three 579 Parkdale Ave nodes)
>>
>> * some buildings just plain don't have address points nearby (like the
>> Agri-Food Canada Building on Carling Ave)
>>
>> * rationalizing address points with existing address ranges.
>>
>> And then there's the postal code problem. If Stat Canada can bring us a
>> licence-compatible data set of full codes that Canada Post *won't* try
>> to sue us over, that would be glorious. I'm not sure we could get enough
>> traction with the general Canadian public to do the "Free the Postcode"
>> initiative like in the UK to make this useful as a crowdsourcing effort.
>>
>> > … One problem I see arising is a new mapper mapping to the
>> > Stats Canada guide lines using iD changes one or more existing tags.  I
>> > do a fair amount of validation in HOT and some newer mappers either
>> > completely ignore or misunderstand the instructions.
>>
>> Yes, this can be a problem with newer mappers. There would need to be a
>> careful data quality metric, but also an understanding that unpaid,
>> crowdsourced data may always have errors.
>>
>> Big project. Genuine opportunities for learning and value on all sides.
>>
>> cheers,
>>  Stewart
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
___
Talk-ca 

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

[john whelan]

​I understand the current intent is data.gc.ca

There is actually a lot of postcode data in Ottawa adhresses as it stands
especially for commercial buildings.  Don't hold your breath for Canada
Post and postcodes.

Some attributes they would like at the moment I can't see how a mapper
would map them from physically looking at the building.

If nothing else it should clean up the map.  For that reason it would be
nice to be able to pull chunks into JOSM and go over it looking for obvious
errors and spelling mistakes in tags.  Maperitive has the ability to
extract the tags and export them in spreadsheet format which is good for
this sort of thing but you need a source to feed it.​


Cheerio John

On 6 August 2016 at 12:38, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:

> Hi John - some great points here.
>
> > My understanding is currently he’s looking getting hold of the City of
> > Ottawa building outline data and making it available to OpenStreetMap
> > without the current license restriction.
>
> This would be wonderful. It would be ideal if the data could be placed
> on data.gc.ca and use the OGL-CA v2 licence. OSM can't use any data
> under the City of Ottawa Open Data - Terms of use
> . I
> also have my doubts about the acceptability of the Statistics Canada
> Open Licence Agreement .
> OGL-CA v2, though, we know to be acceptable.
>
> Also, if there were to be an import, we *must* follow the
> Import/Guidelines
>  or risk having
> any new imports deleted. The recent LA building import provides a decent
> template, but there are no imports without the Data Working Group having
> knowledge of it.
>
> [** Bjenk: if all this seems gibberish, please ping me off-list, and I'd
> be happy to have a chat. Despite my previous flippant comments, I think
> this is a great project.]
>
> To some more of John's points:
>
> > He’s also asking for the building outline to be tagged with the address
> > including postcode.  Which is interesting as currently each node of
> > store within a building might have part of the address.
>
> For sure. I looked at the City of Ottawa data, and getting it to mesh
> with existing address points and ranges in OSM is going to be challenging:
>
> * fixing street naming to meet OSM standards (so Ottawa's 991 CARLING
> AVE would have to become addr:housenumber=991 and addr:street=Carling
> Avenue). Not impossible, but would need some manual oversight
>
> * Inconsistent application of French to some street names, English to
> others, and no obvious metadata to distinguish language
>
> * some buildings in mixed-use neighbourhoods will have multiple address
> points, all containing the same address (eg St Stephen's on Parkdale Ave
> has three 579 Parkdale Ave nodes)
>
> * some buildings just plain don't have address points nearby (like the
> Agri-Food Canada Building on Carling Ave)
>
> * rationalizing address points with existing address ranges.
>
> And then there's the postal code problem. If Stat Canada can bring us a
> licence-compatible data set of full codes that Canada Post *won't* try
> to sue us over, that would be glorious. I'm not sure we could get enough
> traction with the general Canadian public to do the "Free the Postcode"
> initiative like in the UK to make this useful as a crowdsourcing effort.
>
> > … One problem I see arising is a new mapper mapping to the
> > Stats Canada guide lines using iD changes one or more existing tags.  I
> > do a fair amount of validation in HOT and some newer mappers either
> > completely ignore or misunderstand the instructions.
>
> Yes, this can be a problem with newer mappers. There would need to be a
> careful data quality metric, but also an understanding that unpaid,
> crowdsourced data may always have errors.
>
> Big project. Genuine opportunities for learning and value on all sides.
>
> cheers,
>  Stewart
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi John - some great points here.

> My understanding is currently he’s looking getting hold of the City of
> Ottawa building outline data and making it available to OpenStreetMap
> without the current license restriction.

This would be wonderful. It would be ideal if the data could be placed
on data.gc.ca and use the OGL-CA v2 licence. OSM can't use any data
under the City of Ottawa Open Data - Terms of use
. I
also have my doubts about the acceptability of the Statistics Canada
Open Licence Agreement .
OGL-CA v2, though, we know to be acceptable.

Also, if there were to be an import, we *must* follow the
Import/Guidelines
 or risk having
any new imports deleted. The recent LA building import provides a decent
template, but there are no imports without the Data Working Group having
knowledge of it.

[** Bjenk: if all this seems gibberish, please ping me off-list, and I'd
be happy to have a chat. Despite my previous flippant comments, I think
this is a great project.]

To some more of John's points:

> He’s also asking for the building outline to be tagged with the address
> including postcode.  Which is interesting as currently each node of
> store within a building might have part of the address.

For sure. I looked at the City of Ottawa data, and getting it to mesh
with existing address points and ranges in OSM is going to be challenging:

* fixing street naming to meet OSM standards (so Ottawa's 991 CARLING
AVE would have to become addr:housenumber=991 and addr:street=Carling
Avenue). Not impossible, but would need some manual oversight

* Inconsistent application of French to some street names, English to
others, and no obvious metadata to distinguish language

* some buildings in mixed-use neighbourhoods will have multiple address
points, all containing the same address (eg St Stephen's on Parkdale Ave
has three 579 Parkdale Ave nodes)

* some buildings just plain don't have address points nearby (like the
Agri-Food Canada Building on Carling Ave)

* rationalizing address points with existing address ranges.

And then there's the postal code problem. If Stat Canada can bring us a
licence-compatible data set of full codes that Canada Post *won't* try
to sue us over, that would be glorious. I'm not sure we could get enough
traction with the general Canadian public to do the "Free the Postcode"
initiative like in the UK to make this useful as a crowdsourcing effort.

> … One problem I see arising is a new mapper mapping to the
> Stats Canada guide lines using iD changes one or more existing tags.  I
> do a fair amount of validation in HOT and some newer mappers either
> completely ignore or misunderstand the instructions.

Yes, this can be a problem with newer mappers. There would need to be a
careful data quality metric, but also an understanding that unpaid,
crowdsourced data may always have errors.

Big project. Genuine opportunities for learning and value on all sides.

cheers,
 Stewart

___
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]

I think the Stats Canada project is evolving as Bjenk understands a little
more about what he’d like and what we can do.

My understanding is currently he’s looking getting hold of the City of
Ottawa building outline data and making it available to OpenStreetMap
without the current license restriction.

My feeling is the tile approach was an early one which won’t work as well
as he thought.  Some of the attributes he’d like, you just can’t get from
Bing aerial imagery.

He’s asking for a more disciplined approach than we usually do using a more
standardised set of tags.  Currently fire stations for example are often
tagged amenity=fire_station and sometimes they have a building=yes tag.  I
think he’d like these to be tagged building=civic to be more specific than
building=yes.  So a lot of clean up work needs to be done.

He’s also asking for the building outline to be tagged with the address
including postcode.  Which is interesting as currently each node of store
within a building might have part of the address.  Postcodes often are not
present.  If we decide to strip out the address other than the unit number
from the nodes within a building outline we’d probably save a little
database space.  By the way we need an agreement on what to use for unit
addr:unit perhaps?

I’m not certain if he realises that 5-10% of our mappers make 80+% of the
edits, often using JOSM so as long as he gives the attributes he’d like and
we accept them then I suspect much of the work is done.  However I
understand the plan is to have a customised version of iD.  Stats Canada
traditionally has a sample file which is made available to field workers.
I would imagine they will try to do the same here.  A file which contains a
list of building outlines which they would like enriched.  One problem I
see arising is a new mapper mapping to the Stats Canada guide lines using
iD changes one or more existing tags.  I do a fair amount of validation in
HOT and some newer mappers either completely ignore or misunderstand the
instructions.

I’ve heard two comments so far from professionals working in the GIS / Open
data fields, one was they didn’t think it would work, Stats are asking too
much.  The second was more guarded they thought it could work and it would
certainly be interesting to watch.  I would tend to agree with the second
one, it will certainly be interesting to watch.

Cheerio John

On 6 August 2016 at 09:45, James  wrote:

> Yeah, that was when I wastracing buildings manually, Gatineau and Ottawa
> boundaries should maybe be combined into one project as there is
> duplication(overlap) due to how the task manager splits tiles into nice
> squares
>
> On Aug 5, 2016 11:50 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:
>
>> On 2016-08-05 11:08 PM, Laura O'Grady wrote:
>> > I just noticed that there is a project for Ottawa in the Canadian
>> > Tasking Manager [1] called, "#2 - Ottawa Building Update".
>>
>> This looks a little old - it was last used 8 months ago. It also has
>> some unnecessary guidelines, such as adding the redundant (and possibly
>> incorrect, if you accidentally go over over a boundary)
>> addr:city=Ottawa. Ottawa and Gatineau should have boundary relations in
>> place.
>>
>>  Stewart
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

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

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

> On 2016-08-05 11:08 PM, Laura O'Grady wrote:
> > I just noticed that there is a project for Ottawa in the Canadian
> > Tasking Manager [1] called, "#2 - Ottawa Building Update".
>
> This looks a little old - it was last used 8 months ago. It also has
> some unnecessary guidelines, such as adding the redundant (and possibly
> incorrect, if you accidentally go over over a boundary)
> addr:city=Ottawa. Ottawa and Gatineau should have boundary relations in
> place.
>
>  Stewart
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-08-05 11:08 PM, Laura O'Grady wrote:
> I just noticed that there is a project for Ottawa in the Canadian
> Tasking Manager [1] called, "#2 - Ottawa Building Update".

This looks a little old - it was last used 8 months ago. It also has
some unnecessary guidelines, such as adding the redundant (and possibly
incorrect, if you accidentally go over over a boundary)
addr:city=Ottawa. Ottawa and Gatineau should have boundary relations in
place.

 Stewart

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

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

[john whelan]

I would put it as a sub project under OSM Canada more for reference than
anything else.  Simply put Stats Canada is looking for the following
attributes on buildings initially in the City of Ottawa and the City of
Gatineau.  I would recommend repeating it in French on the wiki page but
you maybe able to switch languages in the wiki in which case it can go in
English on the English page and French on the French page.

You may wish to point to a web site that tells the world how wonderful a
project it is but in the OSM wiki I would recommend just the technical
details.

Cheerio John

On 3 Aug 2016 7:48 pm, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
wrote:

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

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

[Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)]

Could we make that page more encompassing of Canada and the project? Other 
areas might want to get started and it would be great if they could find the 
info as well.


From: James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
Sent: August-03-16 12:50 PM
To: Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

We could put it here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ottawa_Gatineau_Buildings
and then link to it from:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa
and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Gatineau
under the data import section. That way people can find the information much 
easier

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) 
<bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca<mailto:bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>> wrote:
Great! Should we start a separate wiki page or put it under OSM Canada?

From: James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com<mailto:james2...@gmail.com>]
Sent: August-03-16 12:28 PM
To: Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) 
<bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca<mailto:bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
<talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada


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

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

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

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

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

Technically we can add to what is there but that adds volume to the database.

We also need to settle on the tags to be used.  I noted the use of 
building=retail I assume that is acceptable as well as commercial.

Another tag used is ele which has the same values as building:levels but I 
hadn't seen it before.

Cheerio John

On 3 Aug 2016 10:40 am, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" 
<bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca<mailto:bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>> wrote:
We could use only a selection of tags. In the form in the interface we will 
use, it could be just residential and apartments not be in the choices.

We will use the tags reserved for buildings. As John mentioned, malls can have 
just a few tags and then there are these shops and amenities floating at the 
same address. Could we have the building and the tags shops, offices, amenities 
attached to them?

Bjenk

From: James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com<mailto:james2...@gmail.com>]
Sent: August-02-16 3:10 PM
To: john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
<talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>>; Ellefsen, Bjenk 
(STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca<mailto:bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

building=apartments should also be considered residential if not they are 
tagged as offices. There is going to have to be grouping of some tags for 
residential, commercial and industrial buildings to get a full tally

Yeah, terrace homes, duplexes, triplexes, condos may all have unique civic 
addresses. Apartments may have the the same civic address but also includes an 
apartment no which needs to be mapped differently then just assigning a address 
to a building(you are now getting into entraces and addr:flats) example of a 
terrace home: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2688375179 and 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262705861  this is the way they are doing it 
in the UK (after many hours in IRC asking how to properly map them)

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:03 PM, john whelan 
<jwhelan0...@gmail.com<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>> wrote:

How many buildings are tagged with a building tag or is that step one tag 
building with the building tag and type?

How do we handle a shopping mall with a building outline and a nodes for the 
stores?

Thanks John

On 2 Aug 2016 2:53 pm, "James" 
<james2...@gmail.com<mailto:james2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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

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

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

Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for OSM:

name
Address:
• Number
• street
• city
• postal code
levels
office, shop
type of access (handicap, etc.)

I

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

[Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)]

We could use only a selection of tags. In the form in the interface we will 
use, it could be just residential and apartments not be in the choices.

We will use the tags reserved for buildings. As John mentioned, malls can have 
just a few tags and then there are these shops and amenities floating at the 
same address. Could we have the building and the tags shops, offices, amenities 
attached to them?

Bjenk

From: James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
Sent: August-02-16 3:10 PM
To: john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>; Ellefsen, Bjenk 
(STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

building=apartments should also be considered residential if not they are 
tagged as offices. There is going to have to be grouping of some tags for 
residential, commercial and industrial buildings to get a full tally

Yeah, terrace homes, duplexes, triplexes, condos may all have unique civic 
addresses. Apartments may have the the same civic address but also includes an 
apartment no which needs to be mapped differently then just assigning a address 
to a building(you are now getting into entraces and addr:flats) example of a 
terrace home: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2688375179 and 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262705861  this is the way they are doing it 
in the UK (after many hours in IRC asking how to properly map them)

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:03 PM, john whelan 
<jwhelan0...@gmail.com<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>> wrote:

How many buildings are tagged with a building tag or is that step one tag 
building with the building tag and type?

How do we handle a shopping mall with a building outline and a nodes for the 
stores?

Thanks John

On 2 Aug 2016 2:53 pm, "James" 
<james2...@gmail.com<mailto:james2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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

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

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

Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for OSM:

name
Address:
· Number
· street
· city
· postal code
levels
office, shop
type of access (handicap, etc.)

If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential that would 
be perfect.

What do you think? Anything else we should add?


Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD

Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et 
l’intégration de données (LEID)
Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les 
entreprises
Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
(343) 998-3004<tel:%28343%29%20998-3004>




___
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



--
外に遊びに行こう！

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:03 PM, john whelan 
<jwhelan0...@gmail.com<mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>> wrote:

How many buildings are tagged with a building tag or is that step one tag 
building with the building tag and type?

How do we handle a shopping mall with a building outline and a nodes for the 
stores?

Thanks John

On 2 Aug 2016 2:53 pm, "James" 
<james2...@gmail.com<mailto:james2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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

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

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

Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for OSM:

name
Address:
· Number
· street
· city
· postal code
levels
office, shop
type of access (handicap, etc.)

If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential that would 
be perfect.

What do you think? Anything else we should add?


Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD

Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et 
l’intégration de données (LEID)
Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les 
entreprises
Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
(343) 998-3004<tel:%28343%29%20998-3004>




___
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>

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

[James]

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

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

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

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

[James]

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

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

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

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

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

[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

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

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

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

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

[James]

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

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

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

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

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

[john whelan]

Technically we can add to what is there but that adds volume to the
database.

We also need to settle on the tags to be used.  I noted the use of
building=retail I assume that is acceptable as well as commercial.

Another tag used is ele which has the same values as building:levels but I
hadn't seen it before.

Cheerio John

On 3 Aug 2016 10:40 am, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:

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

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

[Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)]

Yes, that would be very useful.

From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
Sent: August-02-16 3:56 PM
To: Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

Most buildings in Ottawa are wheelchair accessible do you want them tagged as 
such, we also have a tag for 
toilets:wheelchair<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:toilets:wheelchair> 
which means States if a location has a wheelchair accessible toilet or not.  I 
think this might be useful to map anyway.
Cheerio John

On 2 August 2016 at 14:46, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) 
<bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca<mailto:bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca>> wrote:
Hello everyone,

Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for OSM:

name
Address:
· Number
· street
· city
· postal code
levels
office, shop
type of access (handicap, etc.)

If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential that would 
be perfect.

What do you think? Anything else we should add?


Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD

Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et 
l’intégration de données (LEID)
Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les 
entreprises
Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
(343) 998-3004<tel:%28343%29%20998-3004>




___
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

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

[James]

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

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

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:59 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> What I'm after is the osm map for the area that way I can load it into
> JOSM and search for buildings missing the tags.  Are we adding building
> tags to amenity=place-of_worship?
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 2 August 2016 at 18:17, James  wrote:
>
>> would a GeoJSON help you? I have both city limits in geoJSON format
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:59 PM, john whelan 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In order to identify those buildings that need extra tags it would be
>>> extremely useful to have a map of Ottawa / Gatineau that could be loaded
>>> into JOSM.  The Ontario map is too big and doesn't contain  Gatineau.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a suitable cut down .OSM file?  I have a web site that
>>> could host it / them.  Even if the data is slightly out of date it would
>>> give us a clue which buildings are lacking building:levels for example and
>>> many of which can be added from memory.  That way only the tiny bit of the
>>> map need be downloaded before being edited in JOSM or what ever the editor
>>> of choice is.
>>>
>>> Thanks John
>>>
>>> On 2 Aug 2016 3:56 pm, "john whelan"  wrote:
>>>
 Most buildings in Ottawa are wheelchair accessible do you want them
 tagged as such, we also have a tag for toilets:wheelchair
  which
 means States if a location has a wheelchair accessible toilet or not.  I
 think this might be useful to map anyway.

 Cheerio John

 On 2 August 2016 at 14:46, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
 bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:

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

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


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

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

[john whelan]

What I'm after is the osm map for the area that way I can load it into JOSM
and search for buildings missing the tags.  Are we adding building tags to
amenity=place-of_worship?

Thanks John

On 2 August 2016 at 18:17, James  wrote:

> would a GeoJSON help you? I have both city limits in geoJSON format
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:59 PM, john whelan  wrote:
>
>> In order to identify those buildings that need extra tags it would be
>> extremely useful to have a map of Ottawa / Gatineau that could be loaded
>> into JOSM.  The Ontario map is too big and doesn't contain  Gatineau.
>>
>> Does anyone have a suitable cut down .OSM file?  I have a web site that
>> could host it / them.  Even if the data is slightly out of date it would
>> give us a clue which buildings are lacking building:levels for example and
>> many of which can be added from memory.  That way only the tiny bit of the
>> map need be downloaded before being edited in JOSM or what ever the editor
>> of choice is.
>>
>> Thanks John
>>
>> On 2 Aug 2016 3:56 pm, "john whelan"  wrote:
>>
>>> Most buildings in Ottawa are wheelchair accessible do you want them
>>> tagged as such, we also have a tag for toilets:wheelchair
>>>  which means
>>> States if a location has a wheelchair accessible toilet or not.  I think
>>> this might be useful to map anyway.
>>>
>>> Cheerio John
>>>
>>> On 2 August 2016 at 14:46, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
>>> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>>>
 Hello everyone,

 Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for
 OSM:

 name
 Address:

- Number
- street
- city
- postal code

 levels
 office, shop
 type of access (handicap, etc.)

 If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential
 that would be perfect.

 What do you think? Anything else we should add?


 Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD

 Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et
 l’intégration de données (LEID)
 Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur
 les entreprises
 Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
 (343) 998-3004




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


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

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

[James]

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

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

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


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

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

[john whelan]

In order to identify those buildings that need extra tags it would be
extremely useful to have a map of Ottawa / Gatineau that could be loaded
into JOSM.  The Ontario map is too big and doesn't contain  Gatineau.

Does anyone have a suitable cut down .OSM file?  I have a web site that
could host it / them.  Even if the data is slightly out of date it would
give us a clue which buildings are lacking building:levels for example and
many of which can be added from memory.  That way only the tiny bit of the
map need be downloaded before being edited in JOSM or what ever the editor
of choice is.

Thanks John

On 2 Aug 2016 3:56 pm, "john whelan"  wrote:

> Most buildings in Ottawa are wheelchair accessible do you want them tagged
> as such, we also have a tag for toilets:wheelchair
>  which means
> States if a location has a wheelchair accessible toilet or not.  I think
> this might be useful to map anyway.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 2 August 2016 at 14:46, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for OSM:
>>
>> name
>> Address:
>>
>>- Number
>>- street
>>- city
>>- postal code
>>
>> levels
>> office, shop
>> type of access (handicap, etc.)
>>
>> If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential that
>> would be perfect.
>>
>> What do you think? Anything else we should add?
>>
>>
>> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>>
>> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et
>> l’intégration de données (LEID)
>> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur
>> les entreprises
>> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
>> (343) 998-3004
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[john whelan]

Most buildings in Ottawa are wheelchair accessible do you want them tagged
as such, we also have a tag for toilets:wheelchair
 which means
States if a location has a wheelchair accessible toilet or not.  I think
this might be useful to map anyway.

Cheerio John

On 2 August 2016 at 14:46, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:

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

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

[john whelan]

How many buildings are tagged with a building tag or is that step one tag
building with the building tag and type?

How do we handle a shopping mall with a building outline and a nodes for
the stores?

Thanks John

On 2 Aug 2016 2:53 pm, "James"  wrote:

> There is a way to tag a building type
> Here is a list of the building types:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building#Values
>
> On Aug 2, 2016 2:48 PM, "Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)" <
> bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for OSM:
>>
>> name
>> Address:
>>
>>- Number
>>- street
>>- city
>>- postal code
>>
>> levels
>> office, shop
>> type of access (handicap, etc.)
>>
>> If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential that
>> would be perfect.
>>
>> What do you think? Anything else we should add?
>>
>>
>> Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD
>>
>> Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l’exploration et
>> l’intégration de données (LEID)
>> Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur
>> les entreprises
>> Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
>> (343) 998-3004
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Ramsey]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN) <
bjenk.ellef...@canada.ca> wrote:

> Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for OSM:
>
> name
> Address:
>
>- Number
>- street
>- city
>- postal code
>
>
A given footprint could easily encompass multiple street numbers (duplexes,
for example). Something to consider.

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

[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)]

Hello everyone,

Here is what we would invite Canadians to tell us about buildings for OSM:

name
Address:
*   Number
*   street
*   city
*   postal code
levels
office, shop
type of access (handicap, etc.)

If there is a way to categorize them as residential, non-residential that would 
be perfect.

What do you think? Anything else we should add?


Bjenk Ellefsen, PhD

Data Exploration and Integration Lab (DEIL) | Lab pour l'exploration et 
l'intégration de données (LEID)
Center for Special Business Projects | Centre des Projets Spéciaux sur les 
entreprises
Statistics Canada | Statistique Canada
(343) 998-3004



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