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] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 107, Issue 20

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

The fundamental principle of Open Data is that some data are freely available 
to all and can be used and republished however they wish. Municipalities and 
Governments have embraced the idea and these initiatives are not only there for 
everyone but for OSM as well.

ODL are there precisely to give these permissions so bureaucrats don't have to 
give personal permission to every single person asking for something.

When raising a concern with the current City of Ottawa ODL, the least that 
should be done is to state clearly what problem there is in the wording. This 
has not been done and it's clear that most here consider it to be valid for 
what we do.

What is the problem with the wording? 



Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 22, 2017, at 12:48 PM, talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
>talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada (James)
>   2. Re: Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada (Steve Singer)
>   3. Re: Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada (James)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 12:06:39 -0500
> From: James 
> To: John Marshall 
> Cc: Paul Norman , Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 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