Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada
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
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
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
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] [Imports] Fwd: [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]
The sources are now available on the city of Ottawa's website. As such was the major hurdle last time to proceed with the import and it is now taken care of (http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset/urban-buildings) and the local community in agreement to proceed, we shall begin to do so in the coming days. The documentation has been updated here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan Please refer to it if you have any questions. Bye. On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:40 PM, John Marshall wrote: > Great new. The local OSM mappers are looking forward to adding this data > set. > > John Marshall > > On Dec 21, 2016 09:41, "James" wrote: > >> Just to give an update, Ottawa has finally approved moving the building >> outlines to the open data portal. The person responsible is on vacation and >> will be back the 9th of January 2017 and expect it to be live by the end of >> that week. >> >> So with data source not being publicly available, are there any other >> road blocks that are stopping this import from progressing? >> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Christoph Hormann >> wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday 25 October 2016, Kevin Farrugia wrote: >>> > >>> > Planimetrics represent whatever the ground condition was when the >>> > data was created and updated, which is almost always done with high >>> > res orthoimagery. If someone demolishes a shed in their backyard, the >>> > city would likely need to notice it visually. Every place does it >>> > differently, but that's likely what happens. >>> >>> Actually i was referring to the use of the term "CAD drawings" which >>> clearly indicates a planning component (with the 'D' standing for >>> design) - but you probably have just used the term in a different way >>> than how i understood it. >>> >>> -- >>> Christoph Hormann >>> http://www.imagico.de/ >>> >>> ___ >>> Imports mailing list >>> impo...@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 外に遊びに行こう！ >> >> ___ >> 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
