Re: [Talk-ca] Building Footprint Upload to OSM

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-03-07 09:08 PM, Steve Singer wrote:
> 
> It is my understanding that the act of substitution is enough of a 
> change to require the LWG to need to look at it.

That's correct, Steve. I clarified the Ottawa import page a little:

> The OSMF Licensing Working Group determined in their meeting on
> 2017-03-02 that data under the Ottawa Open Data, Licence Version 2.0
> (Ottawa ODL 2.0) can be included in the OpenStreetMap dataset and
> distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms. Quoting from the draft minutes (draft
> link may not be generally readable):
> 
>> The LWG has determined [(1)] that the attribution requirements of the
>> Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be met by adding the required text to the wiki
>> contributor page and corresponding changeset source attribute values,
>> and that there is no downstream attribution requirement, [(2)] that
>> we are not using "Personal Information" as defined in the licence and
>> referenced legislation, and that so licensed material can be included
>> in the OpenStreetMap dataset and distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms. —
>> OSMF LWG draft minutes, 2017-03-02
> 
> Note: The LWG's acceptance of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 or the Canada Open
> Data Licence 2.0 does not mean that near-identical licences are also
> acceptable for OSM import. The draft minute goes on to say:
> 
>> In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely
>> and have in some cases included additional terms that have made them
>> incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this
>> reason we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised
>> versions of the OGL at this point in time and will continue to review
>> them on a case by case base.
> 
> For example, if the fictional City of Rotonto took the exact text of
> the Ottawa ODL 2.0 and merely replaced instances of “Ottawa” with
> “Rotonto”, the above minute indicates that the Rotonto ODL would
> still need LWG approval.

I made a request to the LWG about this time last year about the Toronto
and Ontario licences, and they're still working on them.

There is another way around the issue: publish as CC-BY 4.0 (as some
Quebec municipalities have done) and supply OSM with one of these
waivers:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 121, Issue 6

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-03-02 11:53 PM, keith hartley wrote:
> 
> Scruff - thanks for the insight on the license, would explicit 
> permission from them for this project work? or does the license null
> it? It's supposed to be based off the national open data license but
> is highly modified.

oh autocorrect and my name …

I think - and only the LWG could tell you for sure - that explicit
permission to use the data under the terms of the ODbL
 were provided, then you'd
likely be okay. The approval need to be a bit more than the "Can OSM use
your data?" / "Yes ;-)" [sic] that we got from Toronto in 2010 or so.

If Brandon were able to relicense under CC-BY 4.0, there are templates
here -
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
-  for getting the data into OSM. An executed copy of one of these filed
in the OSM wiki would probably clear the licence hurdle - but wouldn't
shortcut the import writeup on the wiki and the (sometime brutal)
commentary on the imports@ list.

On 2018-03-03 09:08 AM, Jonathan Brown wrote:
>
> Perhaps the Open Government Partnership folks should consider posting
> a wiki on the common open data license that they are promoting.

It's the Federal treasury board one. At the Mappy Hour Toronto meeting
that you were at (I think) we discussed the option of municipalities
offering their data up to the Federal government to be published under
the Federal licence. Kevin pointed out at the time that that's how
municipal roads end up in the Federal data set. Now, whether we could
get municipalities to do this for other data sets that we'd be
interested in *and* how quickly the Feds might accept and publish it,
are two entirely disjoint matters.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Brandon licensing

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-03-03 11:59 AM, john whelan wrote:
> 
> I assume you're not Canadian.

Umm, Steve is one of the longest-standing Canadian OSM contributors. I
think he's the admin of talk-ca too …

> All data released through
> their Open Data portal is under their licence which has been approved by
> the LWG.

It was grudgingly approved by the LWG. It's hardly a model licence. It's
kind of a bad read on the UK licence, missing out key details that at
least make the v2+ British licence bearable.

> They spent some three or four years consulting with many
> players including the provincial and municipal governments and the
> licence they came up with is one they feel comfortable with.  It's not
> perfect but it is a good balance.

… if you're a government. Notice you didn't list any data users in the
consulted parties. I remember responding to data consultations as a
user, and a conservative estimate of 0% of user concerns were included
in the final outcome.

> Asking municipal and provincial governments to adopt a different licence
> means they need to do due diligence which means bringing in the lawyers
> to explain the implications.

It didn't seem to stop every single municipal and provincial government
wanting to tweak the wording a bit, which makes it a different licence
every time.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Manitoba buildings, addresses and high school work

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-28 11:59 AM, James wrote:
> Before Scruss comes out and says it:

… thanks, James! Been busy with the new job.

> After license is approved …

I'm not a lawyer, but the Brandon licence looks especially troublesome.
It's not based on any other licence I've seen. Most worryingly, it
requires that the person using/importing the data on behalf of a legal
entity has the capacity to legally bind that entity.

In short, it means that if we import the Brandon data, we agree that we
have the legal capacity to respond to anything that Brandon could choose
to throw at us. Not one of us has that.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names (Jarek Piórkowski)

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-19 05:08 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> 
> Have you passed by talk-gb? They have a fair amount of "St" names and
> some authority as to how to do things in OSM.

The UK has Bury St Edmunds, Chapel St Leonards, Lytham St Annes, Ottery
St Mary, St Andrews, St Anne, St Austell, St Blazey, St Columb Major, St
Helens, St Ives, St Monans and St Neots all as town names in OSM. The
only two "Saint .*" towns in the whole British Isles' OSM are Saint
Helier and Saint Peter Port, both in the Channel Islands. Both have
French influences. And just to thumb its nose at us, nearby Alderney has
the town of "St Anne". So I don't think they can be a great example.

Near "St. Louis" (Missouri - abbreviated that way in OSM), OSM has the
towns of "Saint Clair" and "Saint James". In the same area, there's St.
Charles, St. Peters and East St. Louis (IL). In the St. Louis metro
area, there are roughly 4500 ways named "St\. Louis.*" and roughly 3500
ways named "St Louis.*". There are also roughly 3500 ways named "Saint .*"

So this is not a standard well kept.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names in Ontario

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-18 11:04 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> 
>   2 Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (Stouffville)

Like so many post-Amalgamation towns, Whitchurch-Stouffville is the
official name (http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique/FDOLC).
There are some real doozies out there: Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh,
Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield, Havelock-Belmont-Methuen …

Having spent several years working on a project in
Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh (just north of Goderich), the new name hadn't
exactly taken.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i - Solving the licensing issues

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-08 08:39 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
> 
> OSM resembles ordnance survey as was part of the original raison
> d'etre When it started in the UK, but that does not preclude the
> possibility of incorporating administrative boundaries such as wards,
> and less formal boundaries such as neighbourhoods, and potentially
> even other cachtment are boundaries such as school boards, and police
> districts and so on.

The guiding principles of OSM are “How We Map”
:

> Contributions to OpenStreetMap should be:
> 
> * Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
> invented.
> * Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
> permission.
> * Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for themselves if
> your data is correct.
> * Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to others
> how to re-use the data.
> When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
> as it can be observed by someone physically there.

The difficulty with neighbourhoods, catchment areas and other soft
boundaries is that they can't be verified on the ground. The only
reference is the imported source file. Boundaries
 are assigned a fairly
limited set of tags, and administrative boundaries a very
narrowly-defined set of values
.
Administrative boundaries tend to pile up in Nominatim's address
resolution - I'm supposed to be living in "The Golden Mile, Scarborough,
Toronto, Ontario" (neighbourhood, postal town, city, province), though
no-one uses that level of detail. Also, the Federal neighbourhood points
(imported years ago) don't match municipal neighbourhoods (according to
the city, I'm in Kennedy Park).

So while municipal boundaries have their place in OSM, a really good
case (and a whole lot of convincing tagging mavens) would need to be
made before those softer boundaries made it into OSM.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-05 05:17 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> 
> use the letters instead of numbers "+1-555-GOT-BEER"

I'd suggest mapping these to the numbers BUT international phone pads
have a superset of what we use here (7 has Q and 9 has Z) and older
phones may not be consistent with what we assume now. In the UK, ABC
used to be on 2.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-05 04:44 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> I don't know why people use phone=* vs contact:phone=*

Because it's the default in most editors, and it's shorter. I'd prefer
it over contact:phone, because that's a needless namespace. Also, this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:contact#Deprecate_this_tag_family

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i OSM Distributed Model and Education

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-02 06:06 PM, john whelan wrote:
> 
> It would be useful if someone could produce a sample in R that takes a
> .osm file and counts the buildings. 

R might be rather overkill:

grep "k='building'" file.osm | wc -l

One might have to do some clever trickery around buildings that are
relations (those with courtyards), though.

> A task from that would be to extend
> it to count the number of two storey (story) buildings.

I wonder if OSM uses the UK concept of storey, where a two storey
building has three levels (ground floor, first floor, second floor)? Was
a huge confusion for me when I first moved to Canada: first floor means
one level up.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] using image recognition to create building foot prints.

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-01-29 04:37 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> 
> OSM is delighted to receive building data in Canada, truly we are.
> (Provided they are high-quality data).  I have heard the process of
> entering data into OSM, especially "bulk import" OD (which must match
> license compatibility against OSM's license, our ODbL) described as
> "inside baseball."  It is not.

If you're gonna quote me, at least try to understand me, please.

The open data / OSM dialogue in Canada has been going something like
this, ever since I started working with municipal groups in 2011 or so:

Municipal data advocate: Please use our data! It's under an open
licence!

OSM volunteer: But our licences aren't compatible!

Municipal data advocate: But it's an open licence! Our lawyers say
you'll be fine!

OSM volunteer: But we need … (starts to reel off list of additional
supporting docs)

Municipal data advocate: Companies like Google and Nokia use our data
with no problem. Use our data! We are giving it to you!
Don't complain!

OSM volunteer: but but the licence …

(Municipal data advocate storms off in search of a someone more likely
to give them corporate recognition.)

Some very tenacious OSM people and some very adaptable government people
have made things work in a few places in Canada. Only when we have a way
forward on data licensing, then BC2020 would be an OSM project.

 Stewart

 Stewart

Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] using image recognition to create building foot prints.

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-01-29 03:15 PM, john whelan wrote:
> ·*NRCan is working on a methodology to extract building 
> footprints, including topographic elevation and height attributes,
> from LiDAR
> 
> * Traditionally OSM has not been happy with this sort of thing.
> The accuracy can be poor.

If you want to take a look at this kind of data, Toronto's 3D massing
data set is derived from LIDAR. It's what we have for building outlines,
and it's not bad at all:
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/open-data/open-data-catalogue/locations-and-mapping/#db07630f-252d-f7ae-2dff-8d0b38ec6576

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-01-28 04:21 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> 
> Here is the licence (Federal): 
> http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada

Here are some of the problems with that licence, in as many other
people's word's as possible:

* Like the OGL-UK, it doesn't deal with third-party rights. This is a
problem:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2016-September/008541.html

* Unlike the OGL-UK, the TB licence doesn't have a compatibility clause.
The UK licence includes this clause:

> “These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution
> License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of
> which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the
> Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences,
> you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply
> with the other licence. The OGLv3.0 is Open Definition compliant.”

The Canadian licence gives no such assurance.

* Unlike the OGL-UK, the licence doesn't cover the whole public sector.
This from personal communication from Simon Poole of the OSM
Foundation's legal team from March 2017:

>> [The Ontario and Toronto licences] illustrate why we didn't want
>> to make a blanket statement wrt OGL licence variants in CA and why
>> in general the situation is a bit of a mess.

It's also worth playing with CLIPOL - http://clipol.org/ - to see how
badly myriad open data licences work together.

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

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-01-28 09:16 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> Halifax also looks like it grants explicit permission.

still needs an approved import procedure and approaching LWG for
approval - so it's not good to go by any means

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

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-01-28 05:19 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> 
> PLEASE, I ask others to double- or triple- or multiple-check me here!  Do 
> these (local licenses in Canada) reflect the current state of reality?  We 
> (here in talk-ca) believe they do, we (OSM) welcome any updates directly to 
> the Contributors wiki.  Thank you.

vancouver should be green

Cities/provinces that are okay to use should have documentation about
permission and process in the wiki. The Canvec data was an explicit
grant predating the Big OSM Licence Change, and it has no formal import
page because it's so old. Canvec data is now under OGL-CA 2.0, so it's
good, and there are still a couple of people working on the import.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-01-28 08:22 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> I am wondering if I should have them in the format of "+1 999
> 555 1234" or "+1-999-555-1234".    If there is no existing preference
> adopted in OSM Canada, I will use the latter to cleanup the
> non-compliant phone numbers.
> 
> Comments?

Please use the ITU standard: it's international, and so are we. You
never know what country an OSM user will be coming from.

The great advantage to having the +1 in a number is that Canadian cell
phones won't give you the stupid "This is a long distance call …" spiel
if you include it.

Thanks for looking at this - but as with any automated edit, please take
care.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-01-26 09:56 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> 
> What I did was to "back-populate" the list of "approved" (by whom?  when?  
> how did these get here?) list of Canadian cities from
> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities into OSM's 
> BC2020 wiki.

These are very old and pre-date the formal import documentation process.
The Toronto permission e-mail from 2011 or so amounted to not much more
than “Sure ;-)” [smiley included in original]. I don't think the process
would pass muster now.

Unfortunately, none of us are lawyers, the OSMF's lawyers are very busy
and naturally conservative, and slogging through licence work (and
myriad outdated wiki pages) is no fun for anyone, least of all volunteers.

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

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-01-26 09:42 PM, john whelan wrote:
> I'm under the impression that Ottawa was the first city to move to the
> Open Data 2.0 licence created by Treasury Board.

It still took some quick letter-writing/e-mail by James and some
emergency grovelling by me to the OSMF Licensing group to get it accepted

> I'm also under the impression that it is the only one that has had its
> benediction from the legal working group.

Yes, but only for data licensed from the Federal government and the City
of Ottawa. All others - even if word for word - need a
release/permission from the licensing agency and the approval of Legal.

> I seem to recall they have a municipality kit to assist municipalities
> with Open Data.

I haven't heard anything more about that since September. Haven't even
seen the text of the proposed new licence that everyone's supposed to use.

> 
> There seems to be rather more green boxes than I would have expected.  I
> would hope they all have been approved by the Legal Working Group or are
> an exact clone of the TB municipality one as Ottawa is.

there's no ‘or’ here. The TB licence (appropriate, for it is contagious)
wording isn't automatically OSM compliant.

If we got the Toronto licence approved tomorrow and none of the
municipal licences changed for the better, at this rate we'd have all of
the BC2020 data cleared for use by 2088 …



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

[Talk-ca] Burnaby, BC: community map project

[Stewart C. Russell]

I saw a flyer when I was in Burnaby this past week for a call for
volunteers to develop a community map. I wasn't able to keep a copy (and
there's nothing on burnaby.ca about it) but it looked like the city was
wanting to crowdsource a local map of facilities and points of interest.

I might be able to get one of my coworkers in that office to get a copy
if there's anyone local in BC who is interested.

cheers,

 Stewart

(quite far from Burnaby)

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 10

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-01-25 04:00 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> 
> The other wiki (linked to in the "main" BC2020i wiki's "Inventory of
> Current Building Data Sets" section): 
> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020/building_OD_tables

Note that the licence compatibility column as it stands is a bit
misleading now that the table has been split from the main page. There
are a lot of entries that say ODL 1.0 or OGL 2.0 for instance. These
will be the local spin a data licence, and each one will need to be
individually approved by the LWG before the import process can be
started. Examples:

* Grand Prairie - http://www.cityofgp.com/index.aspx?page=2332

* Muskoka -
http://map.muskoka.on.ca/exponare/Open_Data/Open%20Government%20Licence_District%20Municipality%20of%20Muskoka%20GIS_2014.pdf

We don't yet have one licence that rules them all. For instance, the
Edmonton imports (such as
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28190793) look unapproved and
incompatible.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Disconnected addresses

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-10-31 06:37 PM, James wrote:
> not sure what that format is, but it's completely useless, need so much
> processing, might as well just fix them via OSMI

what, the Shapefile that Martin linked to?

Anyway, I took a look at some of the problems in my neighbourhood. A lot
date back to Canvec road import from 2010 or so. Some are clearly
mis-keyings, others a bit more subtle:

* Eglinton Avenue should be Eglinton Avenue East

* similarly, there are a few Lawrence Ave Es that should be Lawrence Ave
East

* Looks like some heuristics got to Mackinac Crescent and made it the
faux-Scottish MacKinac Crescent. Even in Scotland we don't bother trying
to normalize Mac/Mc/mac /M' variants.

* a couple of 'St Clair' and 'St Quentin's, even though it looks very
unwieldy in full form: Saint Clair Avenue East

I'm fixing what I can, but it's dull work

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Canada 2020 OSMGeoWeek Mapathons

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Julia

> I would like to know if you have any suggestions on
> cities/towns/communities in Canada to focus on, particularly rural
> regions that are not mapped and have high resolution imagery.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if there was much intersection between
"rural" and "high-resolution imagery" in Canada. Our rural population
density is very low.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] OSM Canada & State of the Map US: Oct 20-22

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-09-27 05:49 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Are any Canadian folks going to State of the Map US October 20-22
> https://2017.stateofthemap.us/

Nope. Wish I could afford it.

> During the conference, I would like to have a discussion about turning
> the informal https://www.osmcanada.ca/ into a not-for-profit Canadian
> corporation.

I'd be opposed. Who are osmcanada? They don't represent me. Last I heard
it was an informal group of mappers in Ottawa. What would the non-profit
do? How would it justify its status? Would it be attempting to be an
OSMF Chapter?

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Stats Canada building project

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-09-27 07:00 PM, john whelan wrote:
> No we need to persuade the municipalities to move to the new standard
> license in the TB kit

Is this initiative published anywhere, John? I virtually attended the
conference it was supposed to be announced at, and all there is is
Jean-Noé's announcement:
http://open.canada.ca/en/blog/coming-soon-do-it-yourself-open-data-toolkit

I also don't remember any consultation on what it was going to look like.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Stats Canada building project

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-09-17 10:40 AM, john whelan wrote:
> They'd like to extend it across Canada so now might be the time to think
> about the project.

That sounds good. Despite some prodding, the Licence Working Group (LWG)
hasn't got back to me with any updates on how they want to handle the
Toronto or Ontario licences. I first contacted them in March, so if it
takes them six months or more to look at the licence, then this import
is a multi year (if not multi-decade) project. Remember, LWG has decided
that *every* Canadian licence variant needs their sign-off.

Denis Carr (open data lead) from Toronto has been on board since the
spring, and I hope hasn't forgotten us.

Toronto has nice building outlines (embedded in the 3D Massing data set,
so we can pull out base elevation and height). We also have address
points already in the middle of buildings.

It also is of great help that the Esri Community Imagery includes some
very nice municipal air photos for verification.

 Stewart

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

[Talk-ca] Esri Canada Community Maps

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-09-15 12:40 PM, Bernie Connors wrote:
> Esri Canada publishes several maps showing the status of data updates
> for their Community Maps Program. One of the maps shows all of the areas
> where ‎the imagery has been updated. All of the maps are available here
> - Esri Canada Community Maps Status
> - http://maps.esri.ca/updates/tracking/
> ‎
>
> Check the map to see if the Esri World Imagery basemap has Community
> Maps imagery in your neighbourhood.

They've got the City of Toronto imagery, which we couldn't previously
use due to the licence. In my neighbourhood at least, it's accurate and
up to date. Looks like it's from earlier this year: you can make out the
hole in my deck that really needs repairing …

This is really good!

cheers,
 Stewart

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

[Talk-ca] Holger from Wheelmap in Toronto - Sep 21

[Stewart C. Russell]

Holger just posted this in the Toronto OSM Meetup chat:

Holger Dieterich 8:21 AM
Sent from Toronto OpenStreetMap Enthusiasts

Dear Toronto OSM enthusiasts, I'm Holger, co-founder of
http://wheelmap.org , an OSM-based app to find and mark wheelchair
accessible places. We are a non-profit organization based in Berlin but
will come to Toronto and would love to hang out with fellow OSM users.
We would like to invite you and your members for a round of beers at
Otto's Bierhalle on September 21st from 7pm. What do you think? Looking
orward to meeting you! Holger
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

[Stewart C. Russell]

I agree with John that many ways flagged by Frederik look like they are
legitimate CanVec imports. In a random sampling of chdr's flagged ways
in Canada, fewer than 15% were created by that user. Some had existing
names cleaned up (eg: Libersan → Rue Libersan in way 23456048) by chdr.
Perhaps more dodgy are the ones where chdr added a name to an existing
way where none had been before, as there is no change in source tagging
in chdr's version.

Many of chdr's ways have been deleted and replaced by other imports by
other users (see changeset 2386572 for a good example) that reused the
same way ID. So we can't delete these.

Some on Frederik's list (such as way 27877549) weren't named by chdr,
either. So those should stay, too.

The criteria for clearing up chdir's edits in Canada needs to be
tightened up a lot before it is implemented.

 Stewart


On 2017-08-27 10:26 AM, john whelan wrote:
> In Canada as James has said CANVEC which has been accepted as Open
> Source acceptable to OSM has most street names in Canada.  There are a
> few exceptions locally where the city has renamed streets and these
> changes have not yet been reflected in CANVEC.
> 
> I would suggest that any street names added by chdr in Canada were more
> than likely derived from CANVEC sources thus it is extremely unlikely
> that anyone would claim copyright on them.  I am aware of the issues
> involved in respecting copyright.
> 
> Perhaps other Canadian mappers may have some thoughts, although with a
> todo list in JOSM we could probably repair the damage fairly quickly.
> 
> Cheerio John
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 August 2017 at 09:58, James  > wrote:
> 
> If we validate via survey say in Canada, will we be able to remove
> the id from the revert list? Canada has Canvec we can reference to
> as well as OpenStreetCam and Mapillary
> 
> On Aug 27, 2017 9:50 AM, "Frederik Ramm"  > wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>in 2010 I was privately contacted by another OSM user with the
> suspicion that user "chdr" might be copying names from Google maps
> (there were few "easter eggs" in Oman that were only on Google
> and not
> in the real world, and they suddenly popped up on OSM). "chdr" was
> contacted at the time, but continued unfazed. In 2013 another mapper
> lodged a complaint with DWG about edits by chdr, and I emailed chdr
> asking him about his sources. At that point chdr stopped mapping. He
> never replied about his sources though, even when I set an
> ultimatum (of
> 31st August 2013) threatening to remove all names he contributed
> if he
> can't tell us his source. We do have to assume that all names
> contributed by chdr are copyright violations.
> 
> (chdr has added names all around the world, making a harmless survey
> unlikely.)
> 
> For various reasons I neglected to act on this, and was only
> reminded
> now, 5 years later, when DWG received a complaint from a user in
> Brazil
> where chdr has even used "source=google" occasionally. (But as I
> said,
> the suspicion is that Google was used throughout.)
> 
> I have now compiled a list of all street names that were
> contributed by
> chdr and are still visible today; we're talking about almost 75,000
> street names world wide. The most affected countries are:
> 
>   18023 "United States of America"
>   16345 "Mexico"
>   15109 "Brazil"
>6791 "RSA"
>2802 "Spain"
>2614 "Australia"
>1923 "Argentina"
>1673 "Nigeria"
>1569 "India"
>1441 "Canada"
> 954 "Malaysia"
> 744 "Botswana"
> 717 "Philippines"
> 619 "Indonesia"
> 553 "Italy"
> 414 "Turkey"
> 290 "Hungary"
> 284 "Chile"
> 250 "Kenya"
> 127 "Saudi Arabia"
> 107 "Paraguay"
> 106 "Panama"
> 100 "Morocco"
> 
> I've left out those countries with less than 100 affected ways.
> 
> For the US, I can break it down by state:
> 
>5696 "Arizona"
>5116 "Texas"
>2294 "New York"
>1164 "District of Columbia"
> 740 "Iowa"
> 494 "Colorado"
> 416 "New Jersey"
> 339 "Illinois"
> 268 "Michigan"
> 239 "Pennsylvania"
> 181 "Missouri"
> 147 "Georgia"
> 129 "New Mexico"
> 123 "North Carolina"
> 115 "California"
> 106 "Virginia"
> 
> The breakdown for Mexico:
> 
>7749 "Baja California"
>2084 "Puebla"
>1964 "Chihuahua"
>

Re: [Talk-ca] Where are the Great Lakes?

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-08-01 04:21 PM, Pilon, Michel (SSC/SPC) wrote:
> 
> But at my surprise today I realize that the Great Lakes are not there
> anymore for all zoom levels!

“The Great Lakes were tagged as natural=coastline, even though that is
for the ocean, because the coastline ways are rendered at low zoom
levels. They were changed to water=lake and as a result disappeared from
the default map layer. The correct fix is to teach the default
stylesheet how to render lakes at low zoom levels.”
 — https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer#Examples

Basically, they're tagged as lakes. But the arbitrary decision to not
render lakes when zoomed out ('cos typically lakes are small, compared
to countries) leads to them not being drawn. It's okay, all is well.
Don't try to retag them.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Multipolygon problems

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-07-17 10:27 AM, Jochen Topf wrote:
> 
> There is a new layer with this data now in the OSMI:
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas=-64.28033=53.72207=8=same_tags_on_outer_ring

Thanks, Jochen! That's very helpful.

Looks like CanvecImports cleaned up many of the thousands of giant
forestry and lake relations that were a problem the other week. Welcome
back!

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Multipolygon problems

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-07-02 04:41 PM, Begin Daniel wrote:
> 
> However, since the same translator was used for all the polygons, the
> problem should also appear on water bodies, etc. The problem may have
> been related to the complexity of the polygons to convert.

Hi Daniel - yes, I'm seeing a bunch of water relations with the same
problem, such as on the Grand River
 and also parts of the
Speed near Guelph. Some of these data were imported from Canvec 10.

> I also found that JOSM had similar problems with tag transfers a few
> years ago (1). Maybe some of the problems found result from merging
> nearby wooded areas?
> 
> Daniel
> 
> (1) https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9832.

Interesting, but I'm seeing a lot of the problem water relations
worldwide (well, Scotland and Germany) where JOSM wasn't involved. So
while the JOSM issue might have contributed a little, there were other
factors in play. Indeed, I've even seen changesets (such as 5735148 from
Sep 2010) where the editor had to duplicate the relation tag in the
outer way to get the inner features to render!

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Multipolygon problems

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-07-01 05:22 PM, Jochen Topf wrote:
> 
> There is nothing specific about woods here.

It seems, though, that the root problem in Canada is *mostly* related to
woods imported from Canvec. And we have some very large forestry
relations indeed. I was finding that the JOSM process was using 13 GB of
RAM just to load one.

> Of course you should still check all cases against sat images.

Outside cities, sat images are extremely poor in Canada. You might get
10 year old 7½-metre greyscale images. Which if you're looking at a
logging/bark beetle area could be way off current reality.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Multipolygon problems

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi James,

> Canvec 10.0 doesnt have the issues of double tagging, just overlapping

I've found a whole bunch of Canvec 10 data with this problem west of
Sudbury. I think it may still be an issue with later versions.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Multipolygon problems

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-07-01 04:30 AM, Frank Steggink wrote:
> 
> To all, this is the procedure I used yesterday, and probably something
> similar also by Pierre.
> * Not sure if it is a requirement, but it's better to use 64 bit Java.
> …

Thanks for this, Frank. I think I've found a way to make this a bit
quicker by loading a relation URL, then using your search query:

> * Eventually JOSM starts looking cluttered, because of all the extra
> data. You can use the search query "type:way natural=wood role:outer" to
> see if there are still rings needing work.

… then just deleting the ‘natural=wood’ from the selected ways.

I hope I'm understanding the problem correctly*: outer ways in a forest
polygon relationship shouldn't have the ‘natural=wood’ tag? If that's
the issue, then this should just be an auto-edit, no JOSM and
pointy-clicky required.

cheers,
 Stewart

*: here's one of my edits, just in case I'm doing it wrong:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49971662

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Add data of the City of Rouyn-Noranda, Québec, Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-06-17 09:06 AM, James wrote:
> 
> As John has stated if you license your data under the Federal Gov open
> data license v2. We wont have any licensing issues

… but only if you *are* the Federal Government can you use this exact
licence. As the City of Rouyn-Noranda isn't the Federal Government,
their license _will_ need approval by the LWG. Unless you can do CC0 or
ODbL.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-04-25 11:55 PM, m...@rtijn.org wrote:
> 
> Let me suggest this: I will take the concerns raised here to our team
> and get back to the list before the end of the week with proposed next
> steps to fix where possible. We will use Github tickets to track
> this.

As a process suggestion, may I recommend some integration with OSM
changeset discussion? We ran into an issue last year when Mapbox was
also adding turn restrictions. There was some friction between local
mappers and Mapbox staff, as mappers asked questions in changeset
discussion and didn't see the tickets on Github, while Mapbox staff
didn't respond to the changeset discussion and assumed the Github
tickets were authoritative.

I know that Github issues are the industry standard, and the OSM
comment/discussion mechanisms may seem a little quaint, but we risk
talking past one another if we splinter the discussion.

cheers,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-04-25 12:43 AM, Andrew Lester wrote:
> Okay Telenav, you win. …

Yes, that must be frustrating. Would hate to lose you as a contributor.

They're also adding futile turn restrictions at the join of one-way
on/off ramps, like this:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7096540

(in a huge changeset, with the super-helpful comment “small updates”, no
less)

While you might be able to haul a U-ey round these, pretty sure the road
regulations disallow it, along with basic common sense and steering
geometry.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada Data

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-04-03 04:34 PM, Denis Carriere wrote:
> 
> They are both great web OpenStreetMap based map solutions that can get
> you a web map within no time. Nothing against QGIS... but it's a little
> clunky trying to symbolize all your OSM & custom layers.

Great suggestions on Carto and Mapbox, but you can't beat the price of
qgis2web. If you have your GIS project already in QGIS, there's also
nothing quicker for making simple slippy maps.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada Data

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-04-03 01:22 PM, john whelan wrote:
> … At the municipal level the license has been approved by 
> OpenStreetMap's legal working group.

This is not the case, unfortunately. This from personal communication
from Simon Poole of the OSM Foundation's legal team from March 2017:

>> [The Ontario and Toronto licences] illustrate why we didn't want to
>> make a blanket statement wrt OGL licence variants in CA and why in
>> general the situation is a bit of a mess.

All individual OGL variants need approval from the legal working group.

So perhaps the OGL licensing route wouldn't be the best route: a lot of
bureaucracy on the Happy Valley-Goose Bay side, and then a several month
wait for the LWG to review. I don't think Anatolijs would want that.

Given the size of the town and the severe budget constraints, you might
have more luck suggesting to the town that allowing the road data to be
imported to OSM would be a real value proposition. There are permission
request letters here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission . The
town's response to that would be an important thing to include in the
import wiki page.

There's a (slim) possibility that the town's data, being derived from
Worldview 2 data, may not able to be licensed under an open licence. Is
there anything in the data agreement between the town and Worldview
regarding data rights?

As long as the town is amenable and the licence isn't horrible, the OSM
import process described here isn't too onerous:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
There have been several notes to the OSM Imports list¹ from municipal
GIS techs who want to do the same as you, and as long as there's a wiki
page and permission from the town granted, it goes ahead smoothly.

(and even if everything goes sideways, there's a lot you can do with a
vehicle and a GPS that sidesteps licensing completely …)

Really pleased that you want to do this, Anatolijs!

Best Wishes,
 Stewart


---
¹: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports

> 
> On 3 Apr 2017 12:33 pm, "Anatolijs Venovcevs" 
>  > wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> __ __
> 
> I’ve been a longtime fan of Open Street Map but this is the first 
> time I ever decided to help contribute to it. I am the GIS 
> technologist for the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Newfoundland 
> and Labrador, Canada - 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/53.3085/-60.3463 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a small, isolated community of approximately 8,100 people and 
> I’m the only one with any GIS training and experience. As a result, 
> I’m responsible for doing just about everything to assist the town
> in geospatial-related functions and have a very tight budget and not
> a lot of time to them. One of the things there’s been a real
> interest in is developing some sort of a basic interactive web map
> for the town’s public information (zoning, water and sewer lines,
> attractions for our tourist map, etc.). I’m planning on using QGIS
> plugin qgis2web to do that and use an OpenStreetMap background.
> 
> 
> 
> Before I can do that, OpenStreetMap data for the town needs to be 
> updated. It looks to me approximately five years out of date and the
>  town has been experiencing a major boom in the last few years. 
> Currently, the town has possession of an updated street centerline 
> network (digitized from 40 cm resolution orthorectified Worldview 2 
> satellite imagery) and an up-to-date civic number system with 
> building footprints and parcels for recreational spaces and etc. 
> coming later this year. I’d like to share them with the OSM 
> community.
> 
> __ __
> 
> Before I do that, I’m looking for community buy-in for the project.
> I will start with manually adding the new streets that have been
> built over the last few years and correct any information within the
> town boundaries that no longer represents reality on the ground. If
> that’s ok with all of you, I’d like to make the OSM web mapping for
> my corner of Canada a little better.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> __ __
> 
> *Anatolijs Venovcevs* 
> 
> __ __
> 
> 
> ___ 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] Ottawa import: deleting existing content

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-03-31 10:35 PM, James wrote:
> Your example for building deletion, has 0 building deletion
> 
> https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=47337186

Ah, linked to the wrong one. This has it:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=47302320

Here's jiminie's original changeset:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=46827970=19=45.42954=-75.63272=B0TTTFT

Near the top is way #480316854, an H-shaped house number 1031.

It's been deleted and replaced with way #483739791 in carpbunker's
changeset 47302320.

The scope of the import was not to delete ways.

 Stewart


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

[Talk-ca] Ottawa import: deleting existing content

[Stewart C. Russell]

It seems that some of the import users didn't get the “Don't delete
stuff” memo. User carpbunker is deleting address interpolation ways
(example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47333119) and existing
buildings (example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47337186).
Please stop doing that. You need to work around existing contributions.

I'd left changeset comments, but they had not been responded to until I
threatened to talk this to talk-ca.

The user claims to be deleting "bad address imports", but didn't discuss
how those previous contributions were bad here before unilaterally
deciding to delete nodes. Their import-only account is now a mess of
imports and deletions and will be hard to unpick.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> … the engine
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.

but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.

I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
belong in OSM.

 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Andrew:

> … I had already removed some of the
> right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in

Are the restrictions even necessary? If there are turn lanes present,
one should use them. I can see, however, that routing software might
send vehicles through the traffic lights if the turn lane were a longer
route. I wonder if Telenav are tagging to work around their routing
algorithms?

> There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground
> mapping.

Yes, this is troubling to me too. Have you left comments on the
changesets? Telenav's actions need to be brought out into the open.

I'm really not looking forward to seeing what all this algorithmic
mapping's going to do with Canada's logging roads ...

 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Kevin -

> CSDs are legal boundaries - I.e. the legal boundary of a lower tier
> municipality.

I was a bit confused by terminology - I thought that Bjenk was referring
to LCTs. The one I live in looks like this:

https://gist.github.com/scruss/e4778dfc3a0ea5261581e688c4332c93

It's bounded by Eglinton Ave East, the Stouffville rail line, Corvette
Ave, Kennedy Rd, St Clair Ave East, the old GECO rail spur, and finally
Kennedy Rd again.

There's nothing to say that you're in this area (ward?), and as it's
designated by boundary ways, any import relation would have to map on to
the existing ways in OSM, and not StatCan's data. Even though many of
our ways are based on earlier imports of Federal data, there isn't a
perfect match. To StatCan, Eglinton Ave East is just a line. To us, it's
multiple separated ways.

I don't believe that these divisions belong in OSM, even although they
have legal definition for census use.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> 
> … Any more thoughts?

If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
don't belong in OSM.

 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
invented.
   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
permission.
   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
themselves if your data is correct.
   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
others how to re-use the data

  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”

 — How We Map 

Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.

 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] importing data requiring attribution

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-03-05 09:44 PM, Brent Fraser wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
>   I've had a request to improve the stream and trail data around Gibsons
> BC using data from the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD
> http://www.scrd.ca/data-download).  Their license
> (http://www.scrd.ca/scrd_disclaimer) permits this

In addition to James's link, you'd need to have the SCRD licence
approved by the Licensing Working Group. Takes a couple of months. I see
a glaring error in the text: they copypasta'd North Van's licence, but
didn't find and replace properly, leaving the attribution as “Contains
information licensed under the Open Government Licence - North Vancouver.”

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-03-04 09:09 AM, James wrote:
> As the LWG said, it's not a blanket acceptance of all OGL variants, but
> if future licenses we come across are exactly the same(kdiff of text or
> something as proof) except the city/entity name. We will have a strong
> case that it is compatible with ODbL.

Yes, it would definitely help to show that the text of a new licence is
only trivially different from an accepted one. We'd still need to run it
past the LWG, though. Any new licence creates new obligations for the
Foundation. Sometimes these new obligations are trivial, but they need
to be recognized.

> So if future cities are looking to change their license they can use
> Ottawa license as an example so they are sure it's compatible

Ottawa's licence isn't exactly a shining example. It was good they
changed their licence from a grievously incompatible one after you
contacted them about it.

Annoyances with the Ottawa licence include:

* it still includes the third party rights exemption that was brought
  over from the UK licence. I don't see any way that this will go away
  for existing data.

* it doesn't have the statement on compatibility that the UK OGL
  licence includes. This would definitely ease adoption.

cheers,
 Stewart




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

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-03-04 08:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> 
> We can follow the same steps and workflow in the future if we potentially 
> move to another city.
> This is also something municipalities can use in defining their open data 
> licenses. 

Yup - for that reason, I will be asking the LWG about the licences for
Ontario, Toronto and Toronto Public library (yup, all different).

For the record:

 1) LWG's decision on Ottawa doesn't immediately open up all Canadian
open data to be imported into OSM. The LWG, for now at least, plans
to review them on a case by case base.

 2) If you're wishing to get a new licence approved, the timeline from
approaching the LWG to getting approval was about two months.
Please build that delay into any critical path

And belated happy Open Data Day! The reason I was late posting this (LWG
gave me access to the draft minutes mid-afternoon) that I was in an
all-day session with Government of Ontario open data people in Toronto.
Government of Ontario has some very committed open data people.

cheers,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[Stewart C. Russell]

I just got access to the OSMF LWG draft minutes from yesterday, and I
have good news: Ottawa ODL 2.0 data /can/ be included in the OSM database.

The minutes link -
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KyTLbQWSmo1rdoppqlFGTB3by-qVAzjLo_LPml3Ri9Y/edit
- is still draft so may not be generally readable, so I've included the
text in full below:

*5. Statement on Ottawa Open Data Licence Version 2.0 compatibility*

Approval of the following statement:

---

The LWG has been asked to determine the compatibility of Ottawa Open
Data, Licence Version 2.0 (Ottawa ODL 2.0) with the ODbL 2.0 in
conjunction with importing so licensed data. The text of the Ottawa
ODL 2.0 can be found

here_http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0_

The Ottawa ODL 2.0 is a localised version of the OGL

Canada_http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada_which
in turn is loosly based on the UK OGL. The changes relative to the
OGL Canada due to localisation are the licensor (the City of Ottawa)
and reference to the definition of "personal information" as defined
in the "Ontario Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act",

The LWG has determined

  *

that the attribution requirements of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be
met by adding the required text to the wiki contributor page and
corresponding changeset source attribute values, and that there
is no downstream attribution requirement,

  *

that we are not using "Personal Information" as defined in the
licence and referenced legislation,

and that so licensed material can be included in the OpenStreetMap
dataset and distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms.

In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely
and have in some cases included additional terms that have made them
incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this
reason we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised
versions of the OGL at this point in time and will continue to
review them on a case by case base.

---

Approved with 4 yes, 1 abstain.


I've also updated the wiki page.

Have a great weekend!
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

[Stewart C. Russell]

>> Going to wait a few hours to accept replies and afterwards we're going
>> to begin the import tonight (EST).
> 
> Please don't do this - LWG is still working on it.

I see that, despite the lack of approval from LWG, two users have taken
the unilateral step of starting the import:

* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45843129
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45720673

One of the import user names appears to me to be a direct slight to OSM
contributors from another country. This is not acceptable. This is quite
un-Canadian, and contrary to the spirit of OSM.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Denis,

> We've already imported data under the City of Ottawa license, all of the
> OC Transpo bus stop (minus a few in the downtown core).

Yes, I meant to ask: where was the announcement/discussion of the OC
Transpo import on this list? Where's the wiki process page? The imports
seem to have been done by regular users, not import users, too.

> Going to wait a few hours to accept replies and afterwards we're going
> to begin the import tonight (EST).

Please don't do this - LWG is still working on it.

 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi James -

> Yet it's the same as the Vancouver one that has been approved, and had
> data imported

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way that OSM needs to work.
The licences aren't the same: you can't use Vancouver's agreement to
bind the City of Ottawa, and the Federal agreement doesn't hold Ottawa
to anything about its data.

The Vancouver data was available to OSM because Paul Norman and Adam
Williamson[1] got an agreement from the city's Director, Access to
Information stating that the city's data sets were released in
accordance with the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act[2].

(I'd also recommend Paul Norman's notes on licence compatibility[3]
linked from the OSM Vancouver page[4]: they explain why all these
licenses aren't equivalent, and why it's so much work for us to accept
them.)

What I think - and I say think, because I'm learning too - needs to
happen is that we ask the City's Access to Information officials:

Can you please confirm in writing that the data sets
 * (name of data set 1) (url of data set 1)
 * (name of data set 2) (url of data set 2)
 * ...
are released in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

With that confirmation in hand, and the LWG's confirmation (requested by
me, yesterday) that the City's data licence 2.0 is compatible, then I
think the matter should go away. Apologies if my approach has appeared
to change: as I said, I'm learning as I go along.

Best Wishes,
 Stewart

References:

[1]: “[Talk-ca] [Fwd: Compliance statement] - Vancouver address
information cleared for OSM use”



[2]: “Compliance statement”



[3]: “[Talk-ca] Nanaimo OGL license”



[4]: “Canada:British Columbia:Vancouver”




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

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Bjenk,

> Most participants here agree that open data initiatives exist so that
> we, the public, organizations including OSM, everyone can use the
> data.

The OSM project can't accept data that might have hidden licensing
issues that might jeopardize OSM's existence. All new licenses are
treated with extreme caution. From the Legal FAQ:

“XYZ Organisation has data for free download under licence N. Can I use
it in OSM?

Approach the data owners, explain OSM, and seek written permission to
licence their data under our licence and contributor terms.

Unless the data is genuinely offered without any restrictions on use at
all (i.e. public domain), please contact the Licensing Working Group for
advice. Do not rely on your own legal interpretation of the licence. OSM
is all about creating a freely and easily redistributable data set.
Anything which taints the dataset or exposes OSM to possible legal
action interferes with that objective.

Even if you only want to use a minor part, or compare the sources, you
should still seek approval in writing. The legal principles involved are
not well developed, and the OSM community wants to develop a free and
untainted dataset and not test any of the legal issues involved here.

In short: be ultra-cautious”



> With that said, It has not yet been clearly explained what are the
> issues nor the sources raising concerns. Many have asked for
> clarifications and these have not been presented.

These responses take time. We're all volunteers who do this for fun.
I've (just) requested clarification from the OSMF License Working group.
I don't know if anyone had before. To OSM, the Ottawa licence is
different from the Federal OGL, so it needs looked at.

 Stewart


___
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

[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 with Statistics Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Bjenk -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Wishes,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Community Conduct

[Stewart C. Russell]

I know that the issue is settled and the affected edits based on
Carleton's data have been reverted, but I got this response from their
GIS and Digital Resources Librarian today:

… the air photos are not permitted for use other
than academic use, and OpenStreetMap does not qualify. …

… due to the license agreement [the Carleton data user]
signed in order to access the data, s/he is liable if the
City of Ottawa takes issue with the data usage. We did not
collect the data but the City provides it to us for
academic use only.

Happy mapping,
 Stewart


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

[Talk-ca] a neat thing from Mappy Hour Toronto: OurPoster

[Stewart C. Russell]

Bryan from OurPoster came to Mappy Hour last night. They make city
posters based on MapBox renderings of OSM maps. I haven't seen them on
paper yet, but they look rather nice on the website: https://ourposter.com/

These are printed locally in Toronto.


cheers,

 Stewart

(there's no Glasgow poster yet, grr)

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

Re: [Talk-ca] building guidelines for Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi John - happy new year to all!
> 
> The first is a strip mall with businesses inside.
> 
> If the businesses are mapped as nodes then each can have its own name,
> web site, internet_access=wlan etc.

Each unit will also have a unique addr:unit too. In theory Nominatim
should pick up the address from the feature enclosing the node (that is,
the building) but in practice it likely won't. It's not wrong to include
addr:housenumber and addr:street for each node, and I wouldn't say that
this was mapping for the renderer at all.

> Which also raises the issue of building outlines of houses and street
> numbers.  A terrace of houses should be mapped as a building outline
> building=terrace and nodes added for each unit?

Yes, each with addr:housenumber and possibly addr:unit

> Which leads into
> detached building outline and do we add a node for the address etc?

Yes, if you have the information separate from the building. There
doesn't seem to be much consensus —
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#How_to_map_addresses — so
do the easiest thing your conscience can live with.

> Second the use of commas or ; to separate names of businesses in the
> mall.  I'm personally against this

Yeah; don't do this. We can afford nodes for separate business.

> We don't have many semi-detached houses in Canada and the map features
> suggests these be mapped as house.  If we know these are semi-detached
> is it worth adding in the extra detail?

Hey, as a dedicated dweller of duplex land, there are semi-detached
houses everywhere! I've tagged some of them as one building with two
address nodes, as this matches local municipal address point data
practice. [Not that I've imported municipal address data, he adds
quickly ...]

> An office building that lists 1-16 floors except there is no 13 th floor
> I assume should be mapped as levels=15 not 16.  Do we state this anywhere?

“Simple Indoor Tagging”
 suggests
tagging  non_existent_levels=, but I haven't seen that live. You'd
need pretty good internal knowledge to know which were missing. Many
buildings in BC and ON are also missing level 4, 14, etc. Superstition
is a powerful thing ...

cheers,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Community Conduct

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-12-22 07:47 PM, James wrote:
> From what was told to me at the school,  Stewart, you are allowed to
> create derivative work/tracing, but not distribute the imagery.

You may be able to create derivative work, but solely for teaching or
academic purposes. The most recent Carleton University Data Use
Agreement I can find
()
says:

  I am affiliated with Carleton University as a current
  faculty member, student or staff member and I agree to
  abide by the terms of the University’s contractual
  obligations to the owner of the data. Data obtained
  by this agreement is protected by copyright and remain
  the property of the data producer. I understand that:

  * The data provided to me is for the exclusive purposes
  of teaching or academic research while I am a member
  of the Carleton University community and may not be
  used for any other purposes without the explicit prior
  written approval of the owner of the data.

  * I am prohibited from using these data products in
  the pursuit of any commercial or income-generating
  venture either privately, with government, or under
  the auspices of Carleton University.

  * The data is released to me as a working copy for my
  use only. The distribution, sale, donation, transfer,
  sharing or exchange of any portion of these data in
  any way is expressly prohibited.

  * The data is accepted ”as is”, and that the
  owner makes no representations or warranties, either
  expressed or implied, as to the appropriateness and
  fitness for a particular purpose.

  * All publications, paper printouts, or manuscripts
  containing the data must acknowledge explicitly the
  owner of the data.

  * Licensed downloaded data files must be erased
  upon the completion of my research project, course
  assignment, or thesis work.

  * Use of the data may be subject to audit by the data
  producer; so that in the event of audits, my use of
  the data may be disclosed to the producer.

  Data covered by this agreement:

  Data listed below is stored on the Library GIS network
  and is available only to Carleton University students,
  faculty and staff upon presentation of current
  university identification.

  Licenced data include files from agencies of the
  Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario,
  the Government of Quebec, cities of Ottawa, Hamilton,
  London and Niagara, commercial providers such as DMTI,
  Teranet, and Landlnfo, and any other data providers
  which require authenticated access. A full list of
  data providers is available on the GIS website.

I would say that this unequivocally prevents the data being used as an
OSM source. Again, I ask you to refrain from using it until the licence
is clarified by the Carleton library.

Best Wishes,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Community Conduct

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-12-22 02:43 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44545610#map=16/45.4064/-75.7947
> …
> But maybe I'm overreacting and I'm prepared to let the matter rest if
> the Canadian community finds that normal.

I don't find that normal, and I'm sorry you had to deal with it. OSM
must be a welcoming and cooperative community, and some of the comments
in that exchange were out of line. OSM is not a race to see who can add
the most data.

I have approached the GIS at Carleton team to ask about the licence for
their air photos. I can neither access their images as a slippy map nor
find a data licence text. The statement that “City of Ottawa Air Photos
are available for direct download for Carleton University students,
faculty and staff ONLY” (emphasis theirs) makes me concerned that the
data is under a restricted academic licence.

Until Carleton can confirm that the data is good to use, I'd like to
request that Jamie and any others refrain from using it as a data
source. It's like the Ottawa building import: the OSM community can't
use data until its source and licence is verifiable by everyone.

cheers,
 Stewart


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

[Talk-ca] Fwd: Tuesday: Join 4 OpenStreetMappers at "#MaptimeTO with Steve Coast, Founder of OpenStreetMap"

[Stewart C. Russell]

Steve Coast is in Toronto this Tuesday ...


 Forwarded Message 
Subject:Tuesday: Join 4 OpenStreetMappers at "#MaptimeTO with Steve
Coast, Founder of OpenStreetMap"
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:00:55 -0500
From:   Toronto OpenStreetMap Enthusiasts 
To: 



Meetup
Meetup



Tuesday
#MaptimeTO with Steve Coast, Founder of OpenStreetMap

Toronto OpenStreetMap Enthusiasts
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
6:30 PM
Ryerson University - Student Learning Centre (5th Floor) (Room SLC 508)
341 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON




Presentation and Q with Steve Coast, founder of OpenStreetMap and
author of The Book of OSM, about OpenStreetView: http://openstreetview.org/
Learn more






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

Re: [Talk-ca] New Innovative Map Company

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-11-05 12:43 PM, Bradon Levalds wrote:
> 
> This lasering allows only light to pass through the etched artwork which
> frosts, creating a unique, contemporary and detailed design of any
> location in the world with just the click of a button. 

These look really nice! I bet it took a load of trial and error to get
the engraving just so. Having spent a good bit of time laser cutting and
etching acrylic, the results look spectacular when you've got the
settings dialled in.

Hope you've got the attribution* somewhere on the label!

 Stewart

*:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F

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

[Talk-ca] Ag. fair grounds tagged “tourism=theme_park”?

[Stewart C. Russell]

I've noticed that most of the agricultural fair grounds are tagged as
theme parks. Was this a CanVec thing? Most of these could never really
be described as a theme park: Markham Fair Ground is basically a field
with a pavilion. ExPlace struggles for a theme: 11 months of the year
it's clearly pointless desolation (along with football=lousy ;-) ), and
for the other one it's just cuisine=ill_advised.

For me, Canada's Wonderland is a theme park. So is Disneyland. So is
Silver Dollar City*. But most of the tourism=theme_park areas I've found
in Canada are ag fair grounds.

Better tagging might be difficult. There's the little-used
"amenity=show_grounds", a failed proposal from a few years back.
Suggestions welcomed.


cheers,
 Stewart

*: if you're ever in southern MO during the summer, you should go. It's
ridiculous hokey fun, but it doesn't care. The drive across the Ozark
Mountain Highroad is spectacular.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Road route relations: network tag

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-10-28 10:45 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> It's not documented that way anywhere that I could find. The colon
> notation is. Based on the other comments and the documented standards we
> started editing based on the spreadsheet.

Well, it was here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes

roadca_transcanada  Canadian Trans-Canada highways
roadca_on_primary   Ontario primary highways

so now the docs are out of whack with reality.

The colon notation does not seem to be universally accepted. It's not
widely used in the UK or Germany, as far as I can see. The only road
networks I can see in the UK are either scenic routes, with no obvious
hierarchy, or E routes, which if the current national madness prevails,
will have to disappear in the next couple of years for other reasons …

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-10-24 08:04 AM, James wrote:
> I've updated the documentation and incorporated Scruss's findings on the
> build source data:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/TopographicMap

Cool! I was hoping to be able to show that the geojson data that you
were given exactly matches that on the City of Ottawa website, and in
doing so help out by saying

If James's data* == City of Ottawa public data,
then it clears up the data availability issue

… but it doesn't exactly match. The city's AutoCAD data looks older, as
it has the odd building and feature missing.

The new data is pretty close, though. Anyone need a
demo/writeup/picture, or are people generally happy with the provenance
of the data now?

cheers,
 Stewart

*: yes, I know it's not James's data, but it's a lot shorter than typing
in the source and history.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-10-22 12:12 AM, James wrote:
> Converting, DWG to DXF to open in qgis should be fun

nah, all that pointenclicky would do me no good at all. This is what OGR
is for:

ogr2ogr -f GeoJSON -s_srs epsg:2951 -t_srs epsg:4326 \
   -dialect SQLite \
   -sql "select * from entities where LAYER='house'" \
   glebe-houses-4326.geojson 368029.dxf

Assuming I picked the right datum (I've been burned before) here are
some houses from in and around The Glebe:

https://gist.github.com/scruss/5a3f469c47df5d27fdba28258c273b45

I see that building outlines get sliced on tile boundaries dammit.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-10-21 11:41 PM, James wrote:
> Sounds like it, but the data handed to us didnt have sidewalks and
> roads, driveways etc. Ottawa may have exported data from this file

Yes, for sure.

I've now had more of a chance to look at the data (thanks, Ottawa, for
providing no docs at all ...). I'm pretty sure that the data at
http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset/cad-topographic-data is the source of what
the Ottawa group were given.

In the 31 gigabytes of converted files, about 8-10 of the 177 total
layers might be of interest. But:

* The files are in some kind of MTM projection, but I don't know the
datum. Some munis still love their NAD27, so getting this right is crucial.

* These were digitized 2010-2011 at the latest. Since municipalities
share data with NRCan, aren't these outlines already available in a
recent iteration of CanVec in a much more useful (i.e., anything but
DWG) format?

My notes on the files, so far:
https://gist.github.com/scruss/e7f85da2e7943cb1a1d13772fbe144d3#file-ottawabfomapdata-md

(feel free to use/modify/etc)

If anyone wants 31 GB of converted DXFs, let me know. It took Teigha
several hours on a quad core with SSDs to convert this, so I'm not going
to delete it lightly.

cheers,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-10-20 10:37 AM, James wrote:
> 
> We seem to be turning in a circle around "building source data is not
> publicly available"

These might be the source data:
 http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset/cad-topographic-data
Unfortunately, it's a 3+ GB archive of DWG files that has taken nearly
two hours to partly download, so I can't tell you if it matches your
transformed data yet.

 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

[Stewart C. Russell]

Please note my comments/concerns on the process here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan

copied below —


Initial Comments on Plan

It would be helpful if the plan were structured more like the Los
Angeles, California/Buildings Import

documentation. While it's not perfect (relying too much on off-OSM
resource like github), it does break up the documentation into helpful
sections.


  Commitment to follow the rules

Please ensure that any documentation contains a commitment to follow the
Import/Guidelines
 and Automated
Edits code of conduct
.
These are non-negotiable parts of participation in OSM imports. The
Ottawa import very definitely falls under the definition of an Automated
Edit.

As previous activities have been flagged by the Data working group
, it should be
assumed that every edit will now be watched and critiqued from afar.


  Licence

While it is generally considered that OGL-CA is acceptable to OSM, the
lingering third-party waiver issue is troubling. As the City of Ottawa
almost certainly relied on third parties to collect and correct the
data, what efforts have the importers made to ensure that OSMF would not
face legal claims if a third party could prove that their proprietary
data was mixed in with the import?

Please document the “considerable effort and research [that] was made to
ensure the licensing was correct”.


  Data permission

Please note that the Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Permission

link refers to incompatible data. You may wish to seek updated
permissions. All imports pre-dating the licence change (mid September
2016)

should be reverted, as they were done without following the import rules.


  Data availability

Please post a link to the original outline data and licence file. I
can't support an import of data that we can't inspect.


  Data schema

Please indicate how you will map the fields from the source data to OSM
tags. This is a very important part of the process, as it allows users
with import experience to make helpful suggestions.


  Data quality

If you wish to delete existing buildings, please prove that the city's
data is better. We've run into this problem before in Canada:
municipalities want to work with us, but only if we overwrite community
data with municipal GIS data. We couldn't accept that, as their data is
never better in all ways.


  Data deletion

While you will likely be able to show that some imported outlines are
more accurate than existing tracings, please don't delete/overwrite
community contributions. Also, under *no* circumstances delete anything
other than bad building outlines or erroneous address points. The
reverted import deleted Address Interpolation
 ways
(example: Way History: 69590585
) that other OSM
users rely upon.


  Process comments

  *

The three stage “Import Buildings/Import Addresses/Merge Addresses”
process appears cumbersome. Could the import and merge stages be
combined offsite, rather than adding lots of edit history?

  *

What steps are you taking to avoid address point duplication? Other
municipal imports may have addressed this and have tools available
to help.

  *

Is it correct to assume that address points outside a building can
be moved over a building?


  OSMCanada

I'm unfamiliar with this term. Who are OSMCanada? Do they claim special
standing? I do hope that no representations have been made to the City
of Ottawa or Statistics Canada that “OSMCanada” have authority to import
data or speak for OSM process beyond being who we all are: just some
people who happen to contribute to OSM.


  How can we help?

The Ottawa/Gatineau import pilot shows great potential. With wider
community discussion, it could be a paragon of OSM/Government
interaction. How can we help move this process along after community
concerns are addressed? --Scruss
 (talk
) 04:23, 20
October 2016 (UTC)



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

Re: [Talk-ca] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses [Statistics Canada project]

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Denis,

> There's been countless amounts of Tasking Manager's that have been set
> up for importing GNS (towns & villages) in Africa, I believe all of them
> were only point data and have been very successful.

While it's not a reflection on tasking manager, the African village GNS
import recently made “Worst of OSM”: “Look at these nicely arranged
Nigerian villages”
.
There's no way that these villages are arranged in nice neat rows and
columns exactly one minute of arc apart …

 cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] City of Ottawa imported buildings & addresses

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-10-19 02:31 AM, Denis Carriere wrote:
> 
> *Quick survey: *Who is even opposed to a Building Import in Ottawa

I'm opposed to the word “opposed”, as good imports done properly do add
value to the map. But this import wasn't done right, so I can't support
the method.

More later.
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] City of Ottawa imported buildings & addresses

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-10-17 03:33 PM, James wrote:
> Stewart, that's where you are wrong. Ottawa has supplied data(footprints
> and address) to Stats Can to import into OSM for their project under the
> Canada Open Gov License so there would be no issues with licensing.
> 
> We are using that data.

You have not confirmed to this list here that the third-party clearance
requirement of the data has been met. This is required for any OGL data:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-November/005906.html

You are not doing this as part of the Stats Canada import, as no go
ahead, discussion or agreement has been made here. Where is the Stats
Canada Ottawa data published, please?

You are doing these imports under your own user names. You *know* that
this is against the guidelines. You've received two blocks already.
Please stop.

 Stewart



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

Re: [Talk-ca] City of Ottawa imported buildings & addresses

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Frederik,

> Which is why I'm reverting this import (and the deletions that went with
> it) now. Not because we shouldn't ever import the data, but because I
> don't want a fait accompli to stand in the way of a serious discussion
> about the matter.

There are a *lot* more import changesets by Jamie, aka LogicalViolinist.
All of them seem to be importing City of Ottawa open data. This is
separate from any collaboration with Statistics Canada, as it does not
include the fields that they require. We're still not clear that the
city's building and address data meets the third party clearance
requirement that OGL creates.

There also a mismatch between Ottawa buildings and address points. If
you look around here - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/446215268 -
there are duplicated address nodes, and some outside building outlines.

I also have my suspicions that changesets such as 42788839 -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/42788839 (not by
LogicalViolinist, either) are imports. Identical changeset comments to
LogicalViolinist's import ones, and address nodes with source=Bing? Hmm.

Please, if folks are going to import stuff, play by the rules. Every bad
import makes the possibility of good imports much harder.

cheers,
 Stewart



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Avoiding data redundancy

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Jamie,

> Seeing as there are boundary polygons for Ottawa, Ontario and Canada. I
> think to reduce data redundancy these should be removed.

I agree, but there are others who don't. I know that andrewpmk uses city
and province tags as progress markers. There's also the potential
utility where municipal addresses don't match postal ones (such as
Toronto ≠ Scarborough).

cheers,
 Stewart

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

[Talk-ca] Canada Post mailbox locations

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi - I was surprised to find out today that Canada Post doesn't publish
a list/map of mailbox locations. Have they ever done so in the past?

(I realize that such a list wouldn't likely be open data, but I was just
surprised that OSM might be a fairly comprehensive source.)

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] French street names in Ottawa addr:street:fr

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi John,

> Please note the correct French name for rue Sparks is "rue Sparks" and
> not "Rue Sparks"

I'm only finding a couple of addr:street:fr in Ottawa with Overpass, and
both have the offending capitalisation. Both were modified recently by
LogicalViolinist in changesets 42331565 and 42331600. Are there more out
there that Overpass isn't catching?

Personally, I'd be more peeved about the changesets (such as 38745647)
that quietly reimported some of the redacted incompatible Ottawa data
after Paul Norman removed it. It's moot now that the city has fixed its
licence, thankfully.

 Stewart



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Erreurs créées par des non-locaux

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Charles -

> Would you mind educating me? I'm not very  good with the overpass API. I
> just tried and only got 3 ways in the Montréal area (indeed service
> roads) with "source=improve_osm_tn". What's a good query?

This (short link) query pulls up over 1900. Most of them are outside the
Montreal metro, and the map is zoomed quite far out:

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

This is what it runs:

/*
This has been generated by the overpass-turbo wizard.
The original search was:
“source=improve_osm_tn”
*/
[out:json][timeout:25];
// gather results
(
  // query part for: “source=improve_osm_tn”

node["source"="improve_osm_tn"](44.9609111593886,-74.88006591796874,46.214050815339526,-72.57568359375);

way["source"="improve_osm_tn"](44.9609111593886,-74.88006591796874,46.214050815339526,-72.57568359375);

relation["source"="improve_osm_tn"](44.9609111593886,-74.88006591796874,46.214050815339526,-72.57568359375);
);
// print results
out body;
>;
out skel qt;

Hope this helps,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Nunavut place names language

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi John,

> I would like to purpose OSM uses the same standard as this Wikipedia
> Article.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communities_in_Nunavut

Seems reasonable.

> I really believe that *name=** should be written in english (Community).

It's certainly more consistent than using "English  Inuktitut",
since it's unlikely that people will call it two things at once.

Please add name:en as well for the English names. That way, automatic
parsing will show a little less cultural bias.

> Inuktitut name if different from the name = *alt_name*

alt_name looks to me like it's for a name that's different in the same
language. This would be the case for Kugaaruk, which is also (according
to the Wikipedia article) known as Arviligjuaq.

> Inuktitut syllabics = *name:in (ᐃᖅᐊᓗᑦ)*

name:iu, surely?

Best Wishes,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Erreurs créées par des non-locaux

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-09-20 03:46 AM, Mihai Iepure wrote:
> 
> I can confirm that
> we’ve been doing edits using our ImproveOSM tool, using the
> /source=improve_osm_tn/ k/v pair.

It would be nice if they were actual improvements, rather than breaking
the map. Claiming Bing aerial imagery as a source in an area where the
imagery is a vague blur shows that your Telenav mappers are making up
map connections.

I'm looking at your own edits in Toronto. How can you tell which service
roads are public access, and which deserve access=private? Where is
Telenav's methodology documented, please?

Canadian mappers really should take a look on overpass to see where
there are source=improve_osm_tn edits. There are a couple of hundred in
Halifax/Dartmouth, over 1400 in the GTA, about 1500 around
Montreal/Laval, and over 4000 around Edmonton. (None in the NCR so far,
btw). Most of the work seems to be industrial access roads.

cheers,
 Stewart



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Ottawa has changed its Open Data licence.

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-09-14 05:15 PM, john whelan wrote:
> http://ottawa.ca/en/mobile-apps-and-open-data/open-data-licence-version-20

This is very neat! I noticed it yesterday, but was too jetlagged from
XOXO to say anything.

> It should now be aligned with the Federal Government one so that should
> mean we can import the GTFS bus stop file.

In theory, yes, but please check with the city that they have all
third-party rights cleared in any data set you propose to import. As was
recently discussed on the Legal-talk list, OGL does not cover
third-party rights:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2016-September/008541.html

(This is something that Bjenk and the Stat Can team will need to take
seriously for any import data sets they wish to use)

cheers,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Annexation/amalgamation of towns/villages in Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-09-02 12:02 PM, yegbin wrote:
> 
> As Beverly no longer exists, is it best practice to delete this node or is 
> there a better way to tag it?

It shouldn't be in the map if it can't be verified on the ground.

As to tagging, please delete the gns:* tags and especially the is_in
tag. That last one's a dinosaur.

What do you hope to achieve by importing GNS place names? We have decent
place names available already. How will you avoid duplicates?

To avoid deletion, don't forget to follow the Import guidelines. As
we've recently seen on this list, they're not optional.

cheers,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] unnamed roads

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-09-01 06:43 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> A correct example link is http://maproulette.org/map/342/362184 rather
> than the one in my previous message. Due to a bug in either MapRoulette
> or Leaflet you would need to zoom out 1 level to see the map context. 

Yeah, I'm getting no background unless I zoom out quite a bit. Also,
don't forget that we're the True North Strong & Free from Decent Aerial
Imagery, so most of these are hidden in a couple of fuzzy pixels.

Also, what's with the red "You are somewhere on earth" popup? That
either needs to be useful or not there. Pick one.

Also, please select the way when you're opening iD for editing.

Geobase WMS has the NRN (National Road Network) with road names:


There are a whole bunch of other fun OGL-CA licensed things from the
Canadian goverment. We have a Leaflet tile server, apparently:


 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-09-01 09:05 AM, Begin Daniel wrote:
> 
> - Run a better version of the preprocessor on the Canvec raw data and
> reimport them again? Not possible. Canvec data has been produced and
> renew between 2010 and 2012 by our national mapping agency (NRCan).
> The product is now static (no updates) but NRCan graciously keeps it
> available to us...

Canvec - the Government of Canada product - isn't static. It's supplied
under an OSM-friendly licence. In its current version, it's supplied in
a (mostly) seamless format. This would avoid the tile issue.
http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/23387971-b6d3-4ded-a40b-c8e832b4ea08

Michael: your metric of upload features per minute is arbitrary and
capricious. These data are the best that the Canadian OSM community had
at the time. Please respect that while we work out if/when/how we can do
something better. Deleting map data for arbitrary reasons is vandalism.

cheers,
 Stewart



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Qualiuty of OSM data

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-08-31 06:31 PM, Adam Martin wrote:
> I would also like to take a read through that document. Sounds interesting.

It *may* have been this one: “Node location anomaly — Jochen Topf”
 but
I may be misremembering.

> A giant blank gap
> for Canada would not be very good for the map in general and us
> specifically.

I agree completely. Roads, lakes, powerlines, train lines: all useful.
Millions of land-use polygons that might as well say "Trees (or
something)" are not so useful.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-08-30 09:18 AM, James wrote:
> He's even going to revert my work:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41776742
> I've forwarded this to the DWG, it's getting rediculous.

Using a dedicated account for imports is one of the few "musts". Nakaner
may be being a little officious here, but not following import rules can
result in reversion and possible user blocks.

A paper published in the last couple of years (by Anita Graser, maybe?)
showed that CanVec imports were the largest source of spurious precision
in the entire OSM database. I can see why European mappers might want to
delete them.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-08-25 02:26 PM, Alan Richards wrote:
> Generally some of the polygons can be later merged across the boundaries
> into less square shapes, but it can be complicated and slow work.

I don't think it helps that we have users like fx99 consolidating huge
areas into large ways and massively complicated relations, like in this
changeset in Eastern Ontario:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41719048?way_page=1

cheers,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-08-25 04:53 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
>
> … The polygons will need to be either merged
> or redrawn to conform with the underlying land use.

Or, dare I suggest, deleted completely. If they take a huge amount of
work to fix and they add little value by being based on elderly data, I
question their need to be in OSM.

I know it's considered politically inexpedient to have huge blank areas
in your country's map: it gives ambitious neighbours expansionist ideas.
You can't find anything interesting in these polygons, and they don't
help you to find anything, either. Maybe we should just have the legend
“hic sunt sciuri”* every few square kilometres instead?

cheers,
 Stewart

*: “here be squirrels”

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

Re: [Talk-ca] JOSM: purge import pictures into sequence after use

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Laura,

> TL;DR How do you remove one entry of "import pictures in sequence"
> after completing and uploading edits?

In the Layers pane, select and delete the "Geotagged Images" layer
between image imports, perhaps?

What plugin are you using to get the "import pictures into sequence"
File menu entry? I don't see it, but got the same effect by opening
images directly via File → Open …

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] OpenStreetMap at the Crossroads – The Map Room

[Stewart C. Russell]

This week's weeklyOSM has a bit about an over-zealous robot from Facebook:


Imports

  * The Data Working Group (DWG) has reverted

Facebook’s undiscussed import of poor quality autorecognized
streets in Egypt. See also the discussion
 on one of the
reverted changesets.

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

[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

[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] Participating in the OSM forum

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Laura,

> I was trying to register at the OSM forum. It appears as though new 
> registrations are closed.

Try your OSM user name and password. Mine seemed to work, and I don't
think I've ever posted there before.

This should really use OAuth, he grumbles uselessly ...

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Let's map missing turn restrictions in Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-07-20 02:32 PM, Nathan Wessel wrote:
> 
> Someone
> on the tagging list suggested changing these to
> "restriction:on_red"="no_right_turn", which is what I recently did for
> all such restrictions that I could find in greater Toronto.

Is this one?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5652797

It has "restriction"="on_red=no_right_turn", which looks like a tag
within a tag, and this doesn't sit right.

It would be nice if turn restrictions appeared on the main map, but
that's Hard Work™.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] New project with OSM at Statistics Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-07-18 04:08 PM, john whelan wrote:
> 
> … for the pilot what they would like
> is a few tags adding to existing buildings.  These would be things such
> as postcode

Ooh, lemme order popcorn so I can watch Canada Post sue Statistics
Canada for use of "their" precious codes ...

 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] restriction=no_right_turn_on_red causing routing problems in Toronto

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-06-28 04:19 PM, Nathan Wessel wrote:
> It seems like conditional restrictions may be what we need.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Conditional_restrictions
> 
> But it looks like we would be forging new ground if we went that
> direction. I don't see anything on that page about signals of any kind.
> (yet!)

OSRM seems to be programmatically narrow in its insistence on only
scanning the 'no_' part of the restriction. These are useful and clear
tags. Fix OSRM, not the map. Relations are already complex enough that
many mappers avoid them.

Coming from a country where the whole idea of turning on red is illegal
(and all pedestrian crossings are scramble crossings, as they should be)
I wonder if this is just a black swan to the developers?

cheers,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] aerial imagery for missing roads

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-06-23 10:26 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:
> 
> Going north outside of urban zones, there are many tracks for lumber
> areas. Hard to assess the accessibility of such roads for cars.

Most logging roads, certainly in BC, are private. While they look large,
and make tempting additions to the map, accidentally routing traffic
along them could be fatal. Logging trucks don't (can't!) stop, and
unless you have authorization and the right radio to call in the
checkpoints, the controller won't be able to tell you if there's a truck
coming that you need to get out of the way of.

CanVec also mistakenly digitized a bunch of private wind farm access
roads in Ontario, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39334427 .
While using these might not be life-threatening, it is trespassing to
use them.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] aerial imagery for missing roads

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Martijn,

> I am wondering if you know of any more recent aerial imagery that may be
> available? Or other suggestions to fill in these missing roads? (We have
> found many, many cases in Canada alone)

We don't have a national mapping agency in Canada that gives everything
away for free. Aerial imagery is typically carried out every couple of
years by the provinces, but in agricultural areas only. This is not free
and tends to cost anything from $10-150 / sq km just to see. Coverage is
spotty, and depends on the province's priorities.

Within 10 miles of the Great Lakes (so, not in your example) we used to
have access to wonderful USGS imagery. We can no longer see it in
Canada, although I suspect the images are still collected and may be
geofenced. Can't have free data getting in the way of Provincial cost
recovery, can we?

cheers,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Stat Can and buildings

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-06-15 11:01 AM, john whelan wrote:
> As a first step Stats would like to know the tags used when mapping
> buildings in Canada and the number of times used.  … I looked at a small 
> sample from Ottawa and
> noted 127 different tags on buildings including address tags.

This might be problematic. Just in the building ways in my neighbourhood
(pulled in from Overpass Turbo), there are more than 70 distinct tags/keys:

addr:city addr:country addr:housename
addr:housenumber addr:postcode addr:province
addr:state addr:street alt_name
amenity atm attribution brand building
building:colour building:flats building:levels
building:material canvec:CODE canvec:UUID
capacity colour cuisine dbox delivery
denomination dispensing drive_through fax
FIXME green_roof imax internet_access
internet_access:fee leisure man_made
maxheight:drive_thru name note office
old_name opendata:type opening_hours
opening_hours:drive_through operator
payment:amex payment:bitcoin payment:coins
payment:notes phone power ref religion
roof:colour self_checkout service shop smoking
source sport takeaway toilets toilets:access
toilets:female toilets:male tourism type
ultraavx vip website wheelchair

* Rather than producing a hierarchy of what the buildings have, wouldn't
it be more useful to say "Here's the building guidelines
; it's aspirational. Can
it work for you?"

* Then there's the whole problem of implied tags through relations. A
building might only have (or need) a street number and name address
tags, but Nominatim can pull out the city, province and country. The
tags are there in OSM, but not obvious from a tag scan.

cheers,
 Stewart


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

[Talk-ca] In regards to Canadian Postal Code data on Geocoder.ca (tangentially related)

[Stewart C. Russell]

Looks like Canada Post have dropped the lawsuit against Ervin Ruci. It
still doesn't mean that the PAF is open data yet, but it's significant.

>From https://geocoder.ca/?sued=1 —

Legal News, May 2016 - In regards to Canadian Postal Code data on
Geocoder.ca:
Lawsuit Update
This is the final update on the status of Canada Post's
copyright/trademark lawsuit against Geocoder.ca, Ervin Ruci and
Geolytica.

Canada Post has discontinued this lawsuit..

The terms of settlement are confidential but our agreed statement is
this:

Canada Post commenced court proceedings in 2012 against Geolytica
Inc. for copyright infringement in relation to Geolytica Inc.’s
Canadian Postal Code Geocoded Dataset and related services offered
on its website at geocoder.ca. The parties have now settled their
dispute and Canada Post will discontinue the court proceedings. The
postal codes returned by various geocoder interface APIs and
downloadable on geocoder.ca, are estimated via a crowdsourcing
process. They are not licensed by geocoder.ca from Canada Post, the
entity responsible for assigning postal codes to street addresses.
Geolytica continues to offer its products and services, using the
postal code data it has collected via a crowdsourcing process which
it created.

While it is unfortunate that it took Canada Post 4 years to come to
this conclusion, this turn of events reinforces our long held
position that our postal code data is crowd sourced.

PS. All excess donations and/or other funds we have received at the
conclusion of this lawsuit, will be donated to those who conducted
our legal defense pro bono over the past four years of legal
wrangling, with special thanks to the Canadian Internet Policy and
Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) and RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP.

cheers,
 Stewart

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