Re: [Talk-ca] Severed Dick

[Gordon Dewis]

Maybe someone should put a comment on the features so that we avoid rehashing 
it in the future. :)

On Oct 25, 2017, 20:19 -0400, James , wrote:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2016-June/007017.html
>
> So we did.
>
> > On Oct 25, 2017 8:08 PM, "Corey Burger"  wrote:
> > > It was discussed in 2016: [Talk-ca] Bike trail name check - Vancouver 
> > > area Pretty much the same discussion. "Mountain bikers are a crude lot"
> > >
> > > Corey
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 5:00 PM, James  wrote:
> > > > > so I'm not crazy, I remember it being discussed as well...just 
> > > > > couldnt find it in my emails or searching on google
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Oct 25, 2017 7:19 PM, "Bernie Connors" 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > I think if somebody did a search of the Talk-ca archives you will 
> > > > > > > find these trail names were previously discussed here. I have 
> > > > > > > never visited these trails but the names ring a bell in my memory 
> > > > > > > and the Talk-ca list is the only place I would have an 
> > > > > > > opportunity to hear about them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bernie.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
> > > > > > > From: Denis Carriere
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 5:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: Frederik Ramm
> > > > > > > Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Severed Dick
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unfortunately does names seem legit for that type of mountain 
> > > > > > > bike trails, these are not the first mountain bike trails names 
> > > > > > > I've seen with those types of names.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seems like source of these edits come from a reputable editor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > User: BC Trail Guides
> > > > > > > http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/402020482
> > > > > > > http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/402020492
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This doesn't look like this is a form form of vandalism, that's 
> > > > > > > just BC Canada for you ;)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~
> > > > > > > @DenisCarriere
> > > > > > > GIS Software & Systems Specialist
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Frederik Ramm 
> > > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    noticed a few funny trail names in this region near 
> > > > > > > > > Vancouver:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/49.3365/-122.9791
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Quote possible they really *are* called "Severed Dick", 
> > > > > > > > > "Shorn Scrotum",
> > > > > > > > > and "Cunt Buster", in which case they're of course totally 
> > > > > > > > > legit to have
> > > > > > > > > on the map, however I've come across some made-up names like 
> > > > > > > > > that in the
> > > > > > > > > past too. Maybe someone can check.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bye
> > > > > > > > > Frederik
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" 
> > > > > > > > > E008°23'33"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ___
> > > > > > > > > Talk-ca mailing list
> > > > > > > > > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ___
> > > > > > > Talk-ca mailing list
> > > > > > > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > > > > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Talk-ca mailing list
> > > > > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> > > > >
> > >
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] vandalism in Toronto

[Gordon Dewis]

Are these from someone adding Wifi SSIDs they’ve found while out and about?

  —G


> On Jul 23, 2017, at 7:04 PM, James  wrote:
> 
> If he continues, contact dwg. I dont think "avoid this area" belongs in OSM.
> 
> On Jul 23, 2017 5:31 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  > wrote:
> A friend alerted me to some locations with odd labels in Toronto, and I 
> noticed it was the result of some fairly comprehensive vandalism by user 
> 9007801 :
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50083930 
> 
> I think I've reverted it correctly, but they sure did some damage, like 
> adding building nodes in the centre of intersections to take their inane 
> labels.
> 
> User's been contacted, but of course, no response.
>  Stewart
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

Re: [Talk-ca] French Street names in Ottawa

[Gordon Dewis]

And according to the document, the mandate of la Commission de toponymie the 
guide in question only has a mandate for the province of Quebec ("
La Commission de toponymie, quant à elle, a pour mandat d’effectuer 
l’inventaire des noms de lieux sur l’ensemble du territoire québécois, de les 
normaliser, de les of cialiser et de les diffuser.”. (emphases added)

The standard for the City of Ottawa appears to be different.

  —G

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Loïc Haméon  wrote:
> 
> Bonne trouvaille Pierre! 
> 
> 
> For our English-speaking colleagues who might find it wearisome to work 
> through the French language info, I will cite the specific street-names guide 
> (http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/pdf/guideaffichageodonymique.pdf?ts=0.9319020490929337
>  
> ):
>  "Sur une plaque de rue ou un panneau de signalisation, l'élément générique 
> débute par la particule de position". 
> 
> Loïc
> 
> 

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

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

[Gordon Dewis]

I think John's point is that the official name for "Sparks Street" is "rue 
Sparks", not "Rue Sparks". If I were to go and confirm street names by 
conducting an in-the-field survey, I would find that the sign says "rue Sparks 
Street", not "Rue Sparks Street". Whether this follows the rules of French 
according to l'Académie française, or some other body, is a different 
conversation. If I ask the City of Ottawa, they will tell me "rue Sparks", and 
that's what should appear in OSM.

--G

On Sep 26, 2016, 14:31 -0400, Pierre Choffet , wrote:
> Le 26/09/2016 (tel:26/09/2016) à 13:02, john whelan a écrit :
> >
> > I suggest you take it up with the City of Ottawa since they have the
> > responsibility for naming the streets.
> >
> John, nous avons bien noté que ton premier message n'était pas une «
> demande de commentaires », mais une injonction à respecter une décision
> prise par la communauté locale d'Ottawa, laquelle impose *de fait* sa
> manière de cartographier sur son territoire. Il n'est néanmoins pas
> anormal de lancer une discussion en postant sur une liste de diffusion,
> et de recueillir des avis différents, a fortiori lorsqu'ils sont
> accompagnés de justifications.
> La légitimité de la communauté locale n'est pas remise en question,
> c'est pourquoi j'invite tout le monde à respecter cette volonté pour la
> Ville d'Ottawa, fusse-t-elle pour le moins étonnante pour les francophones.
>
> > French in Canada is quite different to other countries. For example
> > accents are not normally used in upper case in France but in Canada
> > there are differences of opinion and it seems to relate to the opinion
> > of your teacher.
> Je ne peux par contre pas te laisser dire une telle aberration.
> L'Académie française¹ et l'usage sur OSM² sont parfaitement clairs à ce
> sujet. L'accent sur les lettres diacritiques sur les majuscules est
> obligatoire en France, recommandé au Canada³, quoiqu'en pensent tes
> professeurs.
>
> > There is very little consensus on what characters are used in the
> > French language. One accented character only occurs in a single
> > French place name. Fun when you need to define the character set.
> > 863 is Canadian French character set by the way that is not used in
> > other countries.
> >
> DOS n'est plus largement utilisé depuis plusieurs décennies, y compris
> dans les régions francophones du monde. Nous utilisons aussi la norme
> Unicode⁴ laquelle permet de représenter tous les signes utilisés à
> travers le monde.
>
> > This is the second time this month that anglophones (generally) have
> > been discussing how to deal with names in other languages (see also
> > the Nunavut place names thread). I think we need to be *very* careful
> > about that: there’s an excellent chance that we don’t know what we’re
> > talking about.
> J'appuie totalement cette remarque. Le choix de mettre plusieurs langues
> séparées par un espace au sein d'un unique champ n'a aucun sens et va
> même à l'encontre des travaux en cours sur le sujet⁵. Je ne suis pas
> intervenu à l'époque de ce choix, je ne m'étendrai donc pas davantage
> sur le sujet maintenant, mais ça m'amène au point suivant, puisque des
> arguments.
>
> > I only know of two renderers that use the French name and they are a
> > custom set of rules I made for Maperitive and also they can be shown
> > in OSMand with the right settings.
> > Now we have a mixture as people have changed the entry to upper case in 
> > roughly 20% of the cases which is unfortunate as it impacts searching the 
> > French street name entry by name.
>
> Je t'invite à relire les règles de base de la contribution à OSM, et en
> particulier celle-ci⁶. Nous cartographions les données telles qu'elles
> doivent l'être, et certainement pas pour combler les limitations de tel
> ou tel logiciel déficient dans sa manière de réutiliser les données d'OSM.
>
> 1 :
> http://www.academie-francaise.fr/questions-de-langue#5_strong-em-accentuation-des-majuscules-em-strong
> 2 : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/117905
> 3 : http://bdl.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/bdl/gabarit_bdl.asp?id=1438
> 4 : http://unicode.org/
> 5 : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Multivalued_Keys
> 6 : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
>
> Pierre
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] French street names in Ottawa

[Gordon Dewis]

If "rue Sparks" is mentioned in a sentence, it will be preceded by an article, 
such as "La rue Sparks est située dans la ville d'Ottawa". A quick perusal of 
many of the official notices in this morning's leDroit shows that addresses do 
not have the street type capitalized. I've seen maps in Quebec that have used 
both conventions.

Perhaps this is an issue that should be left up to the renderers.

--G

On Sep 26, 2016, 10:57 -0400, Loïc Haméon , wrote:
> > Please note the correct French name for rue Sparks is "rue Sparks" and not 
> > "Rue Sparks"
> > The first word is not capitalised.
> > This was carefully verified before the names were added.
> > Thanks John
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> It's true that in French the generic element of place names (rue, avenue, 
> chemin, etc.) are normally not capitalized as part of a text or address 
> (http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/redac-srch?lang=fra=rue=9=14=3=3.3.8#zz3).
>
> However, in maps, where the street name is usually shown independent of 
> anything else and this generic name is the first element of the "sentence", 
> it is usual for it to be capitalized. This is how they are entered in OSM in 
> Quebec 
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/165217842#map=17/46.82211/-71.28523=D)
>  and also in other French maps, whether in Quebec 
> (http://carte.ville.quebec.qc.ca/carteinteractive/) or France 
> (https://www.viamichelin.fr/web/Cartes-plans/Carte_plan-Nantes-44000-Loire_Atlantique-France?strLocid=31NDJqejUxMGNORGN1TWpFM09EUT1jTFRFdU5UVTNNVFE9).
>
> As the "rue" part is not considered a proper name, it is subject to 
> typographical change depending on the context of its use. Regardless of how 
> it appears on Ottawa street signs, given there is an overwhelming norm for 
> capitalization in maps, I would recommend you do the same in Ottawa.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Loïc
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:00 AM,  (mailto:talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org)> wrote:
> > Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
> > talk-ca@openstreetmap.org (mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org)
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org (mailto:talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org)
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org (mailto:talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org)
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Nunavut place names language (Laura O'Grady)
> > 2. French street names in Ottawa addr:street:fr (john whelan)
> >
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: "Laura O'Grady" 
> > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org (mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org)
> > Cc:
> > Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 20:33:31 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Nunavut place names language
> > Just spotted this map of Nunavut on Twitter:
> >
> > https://mobile.twitter.com/CanadianGIS/status/780181115407626240/photo/1
> >
> > It was created by the Inuit Heritage Trust in 2015 and may provide some 
> > insight into this issue.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Laura
> >
> >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:15:02 -0400
> > > From: "Stewart C. Russell" 
> > > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org (mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org)
> > > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Nunavut place names language
> > > Message-ID: <321f3e73-d212-b162-b7c9-c9ab5edb1...@gmail.com 
> > > (mailto:321f3e73-d212-b162-b7c9-c9ab5edb1...@gmail.com)>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: john whelan 

Re: [Talk-ca] What's up with those forests in Canada section

[Gordon Dewis]

I like this! The only thing I might change is the bit mentioning the
satellite imagery. I think it also has roots in air photos from the NTS
work.

Cheers!

  --G

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Sam Dyck  wrote:

> Here's my suggestion for a sort of FAQ (in wiki markup), incorporating
> what James already wrote. I'm posting it here for comment because I have a
> tendency to get unhelpfully passive aggressive.
>
> The squared off sections of forest in Canada are the result of unfinished
> CanVec data import. CanVec tiles are broken up into squares called the NTS
> grid to better manage the data. If you see a forest that's squared off with
> a empty section beside it, it's most likely that that grid has not been
> imported yet.
>
> ''What is Canvec?''
>
> [[Canvec]] is a digital product produced by the federal government that is
> a combination of various federal geodata databases into 1:5 tiles.
> These tiles were converted by Natural Resources Canada into OSM XML and put
> on a government FTP server for importation into OSM. After several years of
> licensing discussion.
>
> ''Some of the data in a Canvec import changeset has something weird going
> on (forests overlapping in lakes, islands where there don't appear to
> islands, wetlands where there sohuld be lakes). Why are you importing this
> garbage?''
>
> Canvec is generally accurate, it was collected from high quality satellite
> imagery collected for the federal government, and has generally withstood
> our attempts to ground truth it. However there are errors and apparent
> errors. Some of these can be explained by natural changes: lakeshores shift
> with the years and seasons, lakes become wetlands, forests burn or are cut
> down and regrow.
>
> The simple reason we have to do this import is because Canada is enormous
> and has very few people, consequently there are large areas that have a
> very light human presence. For example the territory of Nunavut, the
> largest subnational division in Canada, is larger than of France, Ukraine,
> Sweden and the United Kingdom combined and has less than 40,000 people.
> Most people in Canada live in a handful of cities a short distance from the
> US border. There is a lot of blank area to fill, and so we make an effort
> to import quality data, but there is a lot of area to cover, so after long
> discussions we arrived at the consensus that importing Canvec data was the
> best solution, providing we followed a set of practices.
>
> ''Don't you have local mappers in these communities who could check the
> data?''
>
> Most likely no. See the note about population density above. Also much of
> non-urban Canada, especially Northern communities, have to rely on
> satellite internet, which is both extremely expensive and has both
> effective download speeds measured in kbps and small data caps of 5 or 10
> GB.
>
> ''I see some issues with Canvec data, what should I do?''
>
> If you think the data itself is in error, try and check to see if it could
> not possibly be an accurate reflection of what might be at some point.
> Canvec importers have been criticized for importing data, that while it
> looks suspicious, accurately reflects what is on the ground. If it's an
> obvious error that's easy to fix, go ahead and correct it. If there's
> something bigger, talk to the mapper or post on the talk-ca mailing list.
>
> ''I see something wrong with the actual structure of the data (overly
> complex ways, duplicate ways).''
>
> These should have been fixed in the import, but sometimes things get
> missed. Please go ahead and fix them.
>
> ''I found a Canvec import that didn't comply with the import policy!''
>
> Please don't revert it, despite the appearance of wholesale importing, a
> proper Canvec import takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the
> importer. Canvec imports began before the current import policy, and so
> some importers continued what they had already been doing unaware of the
> policy. Hopefully everyone is in compliance now, but if you do see
> importing incorrectly please assume good faith.
>
> ___
> 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] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Gordon Dewis]

Forest footprints change over time but not that much in most places. The 
problem is that forest polygons can quickly end up with thousands of points and 
have the added complexity of holes.

There is value to having them in OSM, we just have to find a better way to do 
them, or live with "seams" at the edges of Canvec tiles.

On Aug 25, 2016, 13:09 -0400, Stewart C. Russell , wrote:
> 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
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Gordon Dewis]

Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from Canvec in
the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal with
compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in the tools I
was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since.

  --Gordon (Keeper of Maps)

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Alan Richards  wrote:

> I believe these are the result of importing Canvec landuse data for some
> areas and not for others. Because the data is in square chunks, you end up
> with these unnatural looking squares on the map. Really it's just a case of
> the other areas don't have detail yet.
>
> Across the border it looks like the US just has parks and national
> forests, etc. mapped, and not the general natural=forest that you see
> across Canada.
>
> Alan (alarobric)
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Antoine Beaupré 
> wrote:
>
>> hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)
>>
>> one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
>> Canada is this ugly forest display:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916
>>
>> Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
>> Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
>> that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
>> you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.
>>
>> I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
>> time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
>> there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.
>>
>> I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
>> about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).
>>
>> Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
>> anyways?
>>
>> In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
>> *all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
>> Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).
>>
>> A.
>>
>> --
>> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
>> humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
>> - John Perry Barlow, 1996
>> A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Fixing an old typo...

[Gordon Dewis]

I’ve added old_name and old_name:fr tags to it containing the name it was known 
by for 68 years. :)

  —G


> On Oct 14, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Colin McGregor  wrote:
> 
> Ran across the following story about the City of Ottawa fixing a 68
> year old typo. in a street name:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/feriand-street-renaming-comes-68-years-after-typo-1.3270002
> 
> Being the SOB that I am I have fixed the typo. on OSM, so what is in
> OSM matches the official name, NOT what the local residents want :-) .
> 
> All the best :-) .
> 
> ___
> 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] Adding Buildings + Leisure + Corrections To Ottawa Map Over Holiday Season

[Gordon Dewis]

One thing to remember about postal codes is that they are a delivery mechanism 
first and foremost. Unless Canada Post has changed things, they don’t have a 
location, per se, because they’re based on postal walks (the route the postman 
walks). Most postal codes refer to something like 11 dwellings, except in the 
cases of large volume receivers (apartment buildings and large commercial 
receivers) and rural postal codes, so any spatial reference is rarely going to 
be 100% spatially accurate.

 

Cheers!

 

  --G

 

 

From: Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.mar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: December 30, 2014 9:31 AM
To: Stewart C. Russell
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Adding Buildings + Leisure + Corrections To Ottawa Map 
Over Holiday Season

 

Hey Russell / all,

I performed a rudimentary test of an address in the map without a postal code 
and later used the Nominatim to search for it to see what it produced. The 
address was 27 Cairo Street in St. John's, NL - I used this because it is an 
old address of mine and I know the postal code there without reference to 
Canada Post or the like. The result from Nominatim is A1B 3X9. The actual 
postal address is A1C 4X2 - a significant difference. I don't believe that the 
postal data in Geocoder is particularly accurate.

Adam

 

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Stewart C. Russell scr...@gmail.com 
mailto:scr...@gmail.com  wrote:

On 2014-12-23 12:27 PM, Richard Burcher wrote:
 - I've removed the mention of postcode collection. I'm not sure of the
 legal aspect of collection as raised in an earlier thread.


I've found that if you add an address without a postal code, then query
Nominatim later, it returns the postal code. I suspect geocoder.ca 
http://geocoder.ca  data
is involved somewhere along the way.

cheers
 Stewart



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

 

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

Re: [Talk-ca] openstreetmap.ca

[Gordon Dewis]

CIRA's residency requirements are defined in 









www.cira.ca/assets/Documents/Legal/Registrants/CPR.pdf 
Cheers!









  --G
—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Darryl Shpak dar...@shpak.ca wrote:

 Of all the suggestions offered, OSMF seems like the most natural fit to 
 me. That seems like it would very much keep the domain in the hands of 
 the community, instead of an individual, which would guard against the 
 individual becoming disinterested or unavailable. The biggest roadblock 
 would be if that violated any of CIRA's rules (I'll poke around and see 
 what I can learn).
 And I would LOVE to see a group of community members actually DO 
 something with the domain :-)
 Thanks to everyone who has offered suggestions and assistance! If there 
 are no compelling objections, I will start the transfer of the domain to 
 OSMF in a few days.
 - Darryl
 On 3/27/2013 7:42 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
 I understand the interest in OSMF holding the openstreetmap.ca 
 http://openstreetmap.ca domain.   To balance that, there is a 
 requirement that .ca domains be held by some body with a legitimate 
 interest or residence in Canada.  (Or something like that).  If OSMF 
 (being a UK not for profit) does not meet that requirement, we're left 
 with holding on to it for ourselves in some way.

 I'm all for whatever we decide.  Especially if we can lighten the load 
 for Daryl, and allow more contribution from the community.

 Thank you Daryl, for thinking to get the domain when it was available, 
 and for holding it safely for so long.  I know that you and I talked 
 about doing something with it a while back, and neither of us did.  I 
 don't think you've done anything anti-community with respect to the 
 domain.  And I think that starting this conversation amply 
 demonstrates that you are one of the good guys.

 So, thanks again!

 Among the options, for the domain I suppose, are:
 - investigate getting OSMF to hold it
 - continue to have a trusted community member hold the domain
 - allow a trusted company to hold it
 - form a company to hold it on our behalf
 - something else(?)

 I'll ask about OSMF holding it.  And I'd be willing to hold it on 
 behalf of OSMF and or the Canadian community

 And I'd like to see, as a separate step, a group of us put our heads 
 and volunteer hours together to actually do something with it.  :-)

 Best regards,
 Richard


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

Re: [Talk-ca] GeoBase tags

[Gordon Dewis]

Personally, I haven't imported anything with a geobase tag, but I will remove 
them if I edit a feature with one. Do they serve any purpose during the import 
process?

  --G

Sent from my iPhone

On 2013-02-25, at 19:51, Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com wrote:

 Instead of a filter in an editor, why not a osm-bot doing this job?
 
 Just my two cents...
 
 Bruno Remy
 
 Le 2013-02-25 19:46, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com a écrit :
 Maybe it would make sense to come up with a consensus of which tags
 can be stripped. I know that for the US TIGER data JOSM automatically
 removes the cruft when you edit a way, and we should have this for
 Geobase/Canvec, too.
  Harald.
 
 On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
  From: Andrew Allison [mailto:andrew.alli...@teksavvy.com]
  Subject: [Talk-ca] GeoBase tags
 
  Hello:
 
Are the Geobase attribution tags relevant, should I leave them in
  or strip them out?
 
  There's no legal reason why you can't remove the attribution=* tags (or 
  any tag, for that matter).
 
  My practice is to remove them when the source=* tag indicates that the 
  source is geobase and I'm editing the way anyways. There may be other 
  import cruft that you want to strip out at the same time.
 
 
  ___
  Talk-ca mailing list
  Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
 
 
 
 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
 
 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Sidewalks

[Gordon Dewis]

Curious. I wonder if they were trying to get pedestrian routing working. 
Vaguely reminds me of something I read somewhere for streets maps for people 
who are blind. 

Why not ask the person who added them?

  --G

Sent from my iPhone

On 2013-01-29, at 20:10, Connors, Bernie (SNB) bernie.conn...@snb.ca wrote:

 I came across this when I was working on Map Roulette connectivity 
 corrections –
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.98773840069771lon=-81.24551922082901zoom=18
  
 I thought it was not advised to digitize sidewalks along urban streets – Are 
 there any other opinions on this?
  
 --
 Bernie Connors, P.Eng
 bernie.conn...@unb.ca
 New Maryland, NB
  
 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Deleting non-visible Administrative Boundaries (or The Great Wall of China)

[Gordon Dewis]

I took from that message that the person was talking about not putting property 
lines in OSM, not about removing geopolitical boundaries. Mapping property 
lines is problematic for your average mapper and doing so accurately is an even 
bigger challenge. If I had to pick where to expend my mapping resources, I'd 
pick other things to map first before mapping lot lines. 

Oh, and the Romans built walls all over the place to define their boundaries, 
many of which are still in existence today (eg Hadrian's Wall). 

  --G

Sent from my iPhone. 

On 2012-12-29, at 12:49, Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,
 
 In this post of Talk-US, Frederik suggests NOT mapping administrative 
 boundaries that are not visible on ground (fences, toll, etc...)
 
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-December/010026.html
 
 Don't you think that the notion of virtual or not is absolutly not 
 applicable on administrative boundaries?! Since humanity  exists, 
 administrative boundaries determines the link beetween   (population) 
 Gouvernements and Geography. Look at our history: except The Great Wall of 
 China, most of old and big Empires settled their boundaries without marks 
 (fences).
 Look at most administrative boundaries in Sahel (Mali, Mauritanie) or in the 
 the United States (Nevada, Arizona): Long strait virtual lines into Desert 
 Land, without fences neither natural limits (rivers...).
 And what about limits beetween USA and Canada in the Oceans and See?
 Do we delete those boundaries because they're not visible?
 
 So ... deleting (or nor drawing) administrative boundaries makes no sence in 
 this way!
 Dont'you mind?
 
 A Map has to be a citizen information of administrative and geographical data 
 (and this includes administrative boundaries) and not 2D version of what 
 OpenStreetMap offers in 3D version
 
 With political, historical and administrative point-of-view a map should not 
 apply the principe of What You See Is What You Get.
 If this were the case, only satelites will remain the only single base 
 material of GIS, and map will die! Isn't it?
 
 I don't think so but i wonder the absurdity of such arguments in favor of 
 WYSIWYG in mapping.
 
 What do you think of that?
 
 Bruno Remy
 
 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?

[Gordon Dewis]

On 2012-04-15, at 11:09 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 Let's talk about it again.  How do we feel about the bulk copying of
 information from a permitted source into OpenStreetMap in Canada?
 
 To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we discuss whether external data
 sources are good or not.  External data sources are good.  I'm
 suggesting that we review how we best make use of those external
 sources.
 
Generally, I don't see why we shouldn't avail ourselves of such information. As 
Stewart pointed put, we're a huge sparsely-populated country. However, there 
needs to be a system to help avoid conflicting with similar/identical data 
being collected by local mappers.



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

Re: [Talk-ca] (no subject)

[Gordon Dewis]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote:

 I beg to differ, the OSM wiki states The place=locality tag can be
 used to name unpopulated place which is not associated with any
 feature to which such a tag could be associated.

 By default many small or unpopulated places are tagged as localities
 in canvec. When I preformed the upload along a remote northern rail
 line, I checked the community against a Government of Manitoba list
 and the census to determine if a place was populated. We do need some
 sort of tagging to indicated the railway significance, but I have used
 place=locality on road locations in both urban and rural environments
 as well (http://osm.org/go/Wpz83vHj2-- and
 http://osm.org/go/Wp5TRnmtN--).


*Disclaimer*: *I am speaking only for myself and not in any official
capacity for my employer, Statistics Canada.*

When I think locality, I tend to think of a place, populated or
otherwise, that has been designated by some level of government, but that's
because of where I work. :)

Statistics Canada had a concept called a locality that was used up to the
2006 Census. In 2011 it has been merged with place name, the definition
of which is selected named of active and retired geographic areas as well
as nams from the Canadadian Geographical Names Database. Place names
include names of census divisions (municipalities), designated places and
population centres, as well as the names of some local places. The Census
Dictionary also notes that prior to 2011, the term 'locality' was used to
describe historical place names, such as former census subdivisions
(municipalities), designated places and urban areas. (ref:
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/ref/dict/geo033-eng.cfm)

I seem to recall from when I worked in the Geography Division here that
localities and place names were from official sources (i.e. the various
levels of government). Building on that, named points along a railway would
not be considered localities because they are operational reference points
designated by the railway operator, much like IFR intersections used in the
aviation world.

Using place=locality on road locations, on the other hand, would make sense
because of who designated the name.

As I mentioned above, *I am speaking only for myself and not in any
official capacity for my employer, Statistics Canada*.

Cheers!

  --G*
*
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Named railway locations

[Gordon Dewis]

I like the railway=named_location because that, to me, is an accurate 
representation of reality.

  --G
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Buchanan matthew.ian.bucha...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:16:00 
To: Harald Kliemskli...@gmail.com
Cc: tagg...@openstreetmap.org; Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Named railway locations

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



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Effets_de_bords_indésirables

[Gordon Dewis]

So, should the changesets in question be rolled back?

2012/2/13 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com

 2012/2/12 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com:
 [ ... ]
  I've sent a note to the user en anglais, and invited them to join us
 here.

 The user has replied and apologized.  He may have used the potlatch
 'r' carelessly.

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

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

Re: [Talk-ca] StatCan Boundaries

[Gordon Dewis]

Disclaimer: Speaking strictly for myself and not the government statistical 
agency I work for.

Hi...

I believe this came up a year or two ago and that the answer at the time was 
no. But, I will ask the licensing people at work and see what they say.

Cheers!

  --G
--Original Message--
From: Olivier Hill
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] StatCan Boundaries
Sent: Jan 17, 2012 08:53

Hello all,

Nice meeting some of you in the Toronto Meetup yesterday.

For those that remember, I asked a question about city boundaries and
sources of data.

Can the data from StatCan be used in OSM? I'm referring to this
product for example:

http://geodepot.statcan.gc.ca/2006/040120011618150421032019/02152114040118250609120519_05-eng.jsp

Best,
Olivier
-- 
http://www.olivierhill.ca/

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



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

Re: [Talk-ca] StatCan Boundaries

[Gordon Dewis]

Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself and not for my employer. Especially
not for my employer.


I just had a look at the 2011 Census boundary file reference guide (
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/92-160-g/92-160-g2011001-eng.pdf) and it
appears that there's a new license. IANAL, but it looks like a source
statement would have to be displayed whenever a census boundary or
derivative is used.

But going back to the original question of using Statistics Canada data for
city boundaries, I'm not sure this is the best idea. Census boundary files
are based on Census geographies. Depending on the geography, you could have
boundaries that coincide with municipal boundaries in some cases, but not
in others. For example, census metropolitan areas (CMAs) do not necessarily
respect municipal boundaries. The CMA Toronto, for example, do not really
resemble the City of Toronto's boundaries. But if you use something like a
CSD (census subdivision) then you have boundaries that more closely match
municipal boundaries, at least for larger cities.

I haven't had a chance to talk to the licensing people, yet.

  --G


On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bégin, Daniel 
daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca wrote:

 Bonjour,

 About city boundaries, Canadian Geopolitical Boundaries are available
 under geobase web site...
 http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/admin/index.html

 Furthermore, we are working on integrating Geopolitical Boundaries
 information in Canvec.osm for the next release.

 Hope it helps,
 Daniel

 -Original Message-
 From: Gordon Dewis [mailto:gor...@pinetree.org]
 Sent: January 17, 2012 08:59
 To: Olivier Hill; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] StatCan Boundaries

 Disclaimer: Speaking strictly for myself and not the government
 statistical agency I work for.

 Hi...

 I believe this came up a year or two ago and that the answer at the time
 was no. But, I will ask the licensing people at work and see what they say.

 Cheers!

  --G
 --Original Message--
 From: Olivier Hill
 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Talk-ca] StatCan Boundaries
 Sent: Jan 17, 2012 08:53

 Hello all,

 Nice meeting some of you in the Toronto Meetup yesterday.

 For those that remember, I asked a question about city boundaries and
 sources of data.

 Can the data from StatCan be used in OSM? I'm referring to this product
 for example:


 http://geodepot.statcan.gc.ca/2006/040120011618150421032019/02152114040118250609120519_05-eng.jsp

 Best,
 Olivier
 --
 http://www.olivierhill.ca/

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



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

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

Re: [Talk-ca] User r_coastlines

[Gordon Dewis]

If the source of data in jeopardy is CanVec do we need to remove it given
that there are no issues with CanVec data being in OSM?

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Andrew Allison
andrew.alli...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hello:
Unless I'm missing something or it's a bug Using the OSM Inspector
 tool. The coastline data as going to be removed, or at least a
 significant amount.


 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-81.24969lat=42.97091zoom=13overlays=overview,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created

There is a lot of data being flagged by users who haven't been
 around
 in years. Sigh

Andrew


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

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

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Imports

[Gordon Dewis]

Maybe they altered the position of the lane slightly or merged it with another 
piece that didn't have come from CanVec? I know that's occasionally happened 
when I've been extending coverage of an area based on my GPS tracks.

  --G
-Original Message-
From: john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:32:53 
To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMaptalk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] CanVec Imports

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



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

Re: [Talk-ca] HWY 7 - Carleton Place to HWY 417

[Gordon Dewis]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 Highway 7 from 417 to Carleton Place appears to be twinned now and
 upgraded to divided highway.  Aerial imagery appears to be too old to
 show the dual carriageway and new junctions.  Some GPS tracks exist in
 the area.  Canvec from this August include some of the twinning and
 diverted local roads nearer to 417, but not at the Carleton Place end.

 Would a contributor in the Carleton Place area please use local
 knowledge, and new survey to rip and replace Highway 7 from 417 to
 Carleton Place?  That will purge any contributions that contributor
 may have concerns about.


I may head out this evening and gather some GPS tracks so that this can be
done.

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

Re: [Talk-ca] HWY 7 - Carleton Place to HWY 417

[Gordon Dewis]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Gordon Dewis gor...@pinetree.org wrote:

  I may head out this evening and gather some GPS tracks so that this can
 be
  done.

 Super!

Ok, so I headed out and drove Highway 7 between the 417 and McNeely Avenue
in Carleton Place this evening. I drove most of the on and off ramps, but
there were a pair at each interchange that I couldn't drive. For those that
I didn't drive I manually added them and added a tag review_needed=KofM,
so anyone interested in driving those ones can quickly find them. I also
tweaked some of the adjacent roads to fix some alignment issues.

Because I got off at each interchange I couldn't actually drive under the
roads at the interchanges so those have been manually connected.

The only thing remaining to do is to add them to the Highway 7
relationship, but that should be fairly straightforward for anyone to do. :)

Cheers!

  --G (aka Keeper of Maps)
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] HWY 7 - Carleton Place to HWY 417

[Gordon Dewis]

Oh, and the changeset is #10128549.
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Dewis gor...@pinetree.org
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:55:16 
To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMaptalk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] HWY 7 - Carleton Place to HWY 417

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Gordon Dewis gor...@pinetree.org wrote:

  I may head out this evening and gather some GPS tracks so that this can
 be
  done.

 Super!

Ok, so I headed out and drove Highway 7 between the 417 and McNeely Avenue
in Carleton Place this evening. I drove most of the on and off ramps, but
there were a pair at each interchange that I couldn't drive. For those that
I didn't drive I manually added them and added a tag review_needed=KofM,
so anyone interested in driving those ones can quickly find them. I also
tweaked some of the adjacent roads to fix some alignment issues.

Because I got off at each interchange I couldn't actually drive under the
roads at the interchanges so those have been manually connected.

The only thing remaining to do is to add them to the Highway 7
relationship, but that should be fairly straightforward for anyone to do. :)

Cheers!

  --G (aka Keeper of Maps)

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Coastline problem in Montreal

[Gordon Dewis]

Alain512 changed it from natural=land to natural=coastline in changeset
#9896847 on November 21st.

2011/11/28 Pierre Béland infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr

 **
 Harald Kliems wrote on 2011-11-28  11:48:14


  possibly related to the recent discussions about coastline problems in 
  Canada, I've just noticed that the Île des Sœurs in Montreal has 
  disappeared:
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.4621lon=-73.543zoom=14layers=M

  I have no idea how to fix this (or maybe it already has been fixed, as my 
  understanding is that it'll take a while to show up on Mapnik). Can someone 
  please have a look at it?

 Harald

 The way  Île des Sœurs (3867621) has been modified by mapper Alain512 on
 2011-11-21T13:43:35Z
  It has the attributenatural=coastline wich seems ok.

 We cannot load the history and see if alain512 fixed a previous problem
 with the attribute.

 This Venise in Montreal should be fixed soon, i believe.

 Pierre Béland

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


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Google Map Maker now in Canada

[Gordon Dewis]

I think people will participate because they will get a warm fuzzy feeling from 
being able to point at Google Maps and say I did that. True, you can get a 
warm fuzzy from pointing at OSM and saying I did that, but Google Maps has a 
much higher profile in the non-geo* community than OSM does.

Personally, I'm going to continue doing my thing in OSM and fix things in 
Google Maps, too, because who doesn't like warm fuzzies?

  --G
-Original Message-
From: Connors, Bernie (SNB) bernie.conn...@snb.ca
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:36:57 
To: 'G. Michael Carter'mi...@carterfamily.ca
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMaptalk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Google Map Maker now in Canada

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



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Future GPS issues?

[Gordon Dewis]

The geocaching community has been watching this for a while. I don't understand 
why this has gotten as far as it has given that the GPS system is owned by the 
United States and is used for military and law enforcement applications 
domestically. You would think that the government would just say no to this. 
This shouldn't have a huge impact in Canada, except perhaps near the border.

  --G

Sent from my iPad

On 2011-08-21, at 14:54, Colin McGregor colin.mc...@gmail.com wrote:

 I ran across the following on a website dedicated to small boats about
 a possible threat to the GPS system:
 
  http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/11/reports/gps/index.htm
 
 Not sure how big an issue this will be, but it is something to watch...
 
 Colin McGregor
 
 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sharrows (On-road markings for bicycle-automobile shared lane)

[Gordon Dewis]

I was out and about last night in Ottawa and saw some sharrow markings on
Somerset in Chinatown. Sharrow is a new-to-me word, too.

  --G

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 8:41 AM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote:

 In Ottawa we have paved shoulders which show up on the city's cycle maps as
 recommended.  You can tag them but the normal rendering doesn't really show
 them on a cycle map.  I set something up using Maperitive
 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WkJzx5NffRv0TIQgCFFGTQzyqbQ9XDphSLqcjuM8wGM/edit?hl=en_USbut
  I agree there isn't really a consistant way that things are handled in
 OSM for cycle paths etc.

 Cheerio John

 On 19 August 2011 00:06, Darren Ewaniuk darren_ewan...@hotmail.comwrote:

  This summer, the city of Edmonton is marking some streets to designate
 bicycle use on them.

 On portions of these streets that are wider, they have one driving lane in
 each direction and are painting the outside lanes off and designating them
 bicycle lanes (hence one automobile lane and one bicycle lane in each
 direction).
 These appear to be straightforward, and I am marking these as:
   cycleway=lane
   bicycle=designated
   lanes=2

 On other portions of these streets which are either narrower or require
 turning lanes onto a more arterial road, or on smaller streets, they are
 putting up Share the road signs and are painting a sharrow on one lane in
 each direction to indicate that the marked lanes are shared
 automobile/bicycle.

 What's a Sharrow - http://bikehugger.com/post/view/whats-a-sharrow

 I can't seem to find a consistent convention for tagging sharrows in OSM.

 Some information indicates just to mark that this street is designated for
 bicycles:
   bicycle=designated
 But this doesn't really indicate that the road is explicitly marked and
 intended as a route for bicycles, since by default bicycles are allowed on
 all streets.
 Hence routing software will not likely prioritize these streets when
 planning a bicycle route.

 Other messages indicate to be specific and tag the street with sharrow=yes
 to explicitly specify there is on road markings for a shared bicycle lane:
   bicycle=designated
   cycleway=no
   sharrow=yes

 And yet other messages indicate that not all shared roads or all countries
 have painted sharrows and that the shared lane be marked as
 cycleway=shared_lane
   bicycle=designated
   cycleway=shared_lane

 What have other Canadian OSMers been using?

 For my changes so far, I have used the sharrow=yes tag.

 An example is 97 Street NW around 63 Avenue NW:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.49945lon=-113.48005zoom=17layers=M

 97th Street NW North of 63 Ave has sharrows
 97th Street NW from 62 to 63 Ave is tagged as having 2 lanes each
 direction with Sharrows
  (In reality, northbound is 2 lanes with sharrows, southbound is 1 lane
 traffic + separate bicycle lane, but short of splitting this in two ways
 there is no way to tag this)
 97th Street NW South of 62 avenue has separate bike lanes (1 traffic lane
 + 1 bicycle lane southbound, 1 traffic lane + 1 bicycle lane northbound)

 What tagging convention should be used here?


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



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


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?

[Gordon Dewis]

And it is done.

I have reverted all his changesets from June 5th and 6th, so the great
swaths of Ottawa that were removed should be back. The revert changesets
clearly indicate the changeset being reverted and the reason for the
reversion. (You can find the list on my edits page at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Keeper%20of%20Maps/edits)

Now to bed...

  --G

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Gordon Dewis gor...@pinetree.org wrote:

 I will do that this evening.

  --G
 -Original Message-
 From: Jonathan Crowe jonathan.cr...@gmail.com
 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:03:41
 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?

 John is missing the point, perhaps deliberately. He hasn't listened to
 a thing we've said. He's just justifying and rationalizing his
 original decision.

 There's no point in discussing this any further. He doesn't get it and
 he never will. We're wasting time here. Treat his edits as vandalism
 and proceed accordingly.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Change_rollback


 --
 Jonathan Crowe
 The Map Room: A Weblog About Maps
 http://www.maproomblog.com

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


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?

[Gordon Dewis]

The reverting has already begun. I have looked at some of the features deleted 
and some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them.
-Original Message-
From: Samuel Longiaru longi...@shaw.ca
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:34:44 
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?

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



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?

[Gordon Dewis]

I am surprised that you removed a feature that was 100% not connected with you 
in any way.
-Original Message-
From: john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:32:11 
To: gor...@pinetree.org
Cc: Samuel Longiarulongi...@shaw.ca; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?

 some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them.

 But why would that surprise you?  The objective was to remove dubious data
from the database not to delete anything else.

Cheerio John

On 7 June 2011 17:37, Gordon Dewis gor...@pinetree.org wrote:

 The reverting has already begun. I have looked at some of the features
 deleted and some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them.
 -Original Message-
 From: Samuel Longiaru longi...@shaw.ca
 Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:34:44
 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?

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



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


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?

[Gordon Dewis]

Well, not sure what to say, John. You've deleted stuff that I've worked on
without my consent, so there's a problem. If the features you had deleted
were still v1 that you had added, I could see an argument in support of what
you've done, but many of the features appear to be v1 with more than just
your name attached to them, so you're unilaterally deleting features that
are no longer purely yours.  As one of the people affected by this, I do not
give you this consent.

  --G

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:50 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote:

 No at the time the data was added there wasn't a problem.  The problem
 arose when the new CT retroactively changed the previously inserted data.

 Cheerio John


 On 6 June 2011 18:30, Gordon Dewis gor...@pinetree.org wrote:

 What should John do?

 John should accept the fact that the data he has added were added under
 the terms he agreed to and retroactively changing his mind and deleting
 everything is not an acceptable option. Your unilateral actions have
 impacted more than just your data.

 That is what John should do.



 On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:21 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.comwrote:

 My preference would have been to have my CT put back to none acceptance.
 This has been requested in OSM Talk but I've been told this was not
 possible.

 My next preference would be to have all my edits rolled back, again this
 request has been ignored more than once.

 I don't feel at all comfortable with the new CT for all the work I've
 done.  I've used CANVEC as an example, its not so much the .odbl as the open
 endedness of the CT.  I can work with the new CT by restricting my sources
 to ones that I have complete license control over which basically means
 carrying the GPS than working from the traces but no imports.

 I agree selecting and deleting manually is not nice but once its done the
 the community can repair the damage fairly quickly and it does remove the
 problem data.

 as Richard says Question open to the room.  What now?  What should John
 do?  What should we do?

 I'm open to suggestions either of the first two would be more than
 acceptable.

 Thanks

 Cheerio John



 On 6 June 2011 18:10, Gordon Dewis gor...@pinetree.org wrote:

 All...

 I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say that
 I am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back
 cleaning up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I
 would respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question.

 Once someone else has modified something added by someone else I think
 you've given up your rights to it. In this case I touched virtually every
 street in Westboro and Hintonburg and now I find that my work has been
 removed, too.

   --Gordon (Keeper of Maps)


 On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.comwrote:

 On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT.

 If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and
 why was there so much chatter about it?  And if I recall my reply, it
 was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up
 your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big
 improvement for OSM.  Is that about right?

  On looking more deeply into
  the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license
  anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish.
 Currently it is
  odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever
 changing
  document.

 You appear not to have looked deeply enough.  The CTs allow additional
 license changes ONLY, to another Free and Open license, and ONLY by
 approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the
 time.  [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email
 within three weeks.]  So a new license has to be Free and Open and
 approved by the community.  Or perhaps you've just changed your mind.

  Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered
 from a GPS
  track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the
 new CT
  but very little else.
 
  I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance.
 
  I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits
 removed but
  all have been ignored.
 
  So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually.

 Your premise is flawed.  It's not your data once you contribute to a
 collective project like OpenStreetMap, the data belongs to all of us.
 It's not your well if you help the village dig it.  You can't decide
 you would rather use it as a latrine.  That's a decision the village
 has to take together.

 The license change is an exceptional situation, in which we are
 offering each contributor the option to have their contributions
 removed, granting far more control of their contributed data than
 would be expected.  It is an exceptionally cautious approach

Re: [Talk-ca] [Tagging] 0-0 address lines

[Gordon Dewis]

I have been wondering about them for a while, too. In fact, when tidying up 
links I often remove the annoying little 0-0 address ranges because they add 
nothing to the dataset.

  --G
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
Sender: talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:09:35 
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolstagg...@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMaptalk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] [Tagging] 0-0 address lines

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Sam Vekemans
acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote:
 ... and the reason for having a '0' was to show where (geometrically)
 it will be.
 So if people do know what the housenumber range actually is (or want
 to extrapolate it from statsCan) they are welcome to.

Two comments on this:
Why would the ends of surveyed house numbers be the same as the ends
of the imported ways?
Why are these next to ways that don't have and never will have
addresses, such as motorways and links?

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

Re: [Talk-ca] How to tag London Drugs?

[Gordon Dewis]

I must confess I was wondering the same thing myself.

  --G (Keeper of Maps)
-Original Message-
From: James Ewen ve6...@gmail.com
Sender: talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 07:03:56 
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] How to tag London Drugs?

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:37 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 Your suggestion of shop=department_store, plus a POI for
 amenity=pharmacy, sounds ideal.  Remember to add dispensing=yes, to
 the pharmacy POI if they dispense prescriptions.

Just to sate my curiosity, what would a pharmacy sell if it didn't
dispense prescriptions? Would 7-11 be a pharmacy because they sell
Tylenol? I equate dispensing prescriptions implicitly with the term
pharmacy.

James
VE6SRV

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Pay-and-display machines

[Gordon Dewis]

Ah... that looks like the right thing. Thanks! So, would the prepaid cards
you can buy from the City of Ottawa be considered *
payment:electronic_purses=yes*?

  --G

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Gordon Dewis gor...@pinetree.org wrote:
  Hello...
 
  Ottawa started rolling out pay-and-display parking machines. Is this
  something that we might want to add to OSM? How should they be tagged?

 The vending machines would be amenity=vending

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vending

* amenity=vending_machine
* vending=parking_tickets
* payment:coins=yes
* payment:notes=yes

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Map Error

[Gordon Dewis]

Interesting. I wonder if it's an artefact left over after the NAD27-NAD83 
conversion.

  --Gordon
-Original Message-
From: Bob Dustan bob.dus...@gmail.com
Sender: talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:30:45 
To: talk-catalk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] Map Error

Hi,

I was importing CanVec data for 031E07 and noticed what appears to be an
error in the map.  A section of the Oxtongue River seems to be repeated
nearby in 031E06.  In OSM you can see it at:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=45.317mlon=-79.0zoom=15layers=M

If you use JOSM or Merkaator to view this area and enable the NRCan WMS,
you'll see that the error is also in the WMS version of the map.

The error also appears in The Atlas of Canada (Toporama) web site at:

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/topo/map?layers=nodata_ntdb_50k%20north_arrow%20other_features%20million_grid%20t50k_grid%20grid_50k_3%20roads%20hydrography%20boundary%20builtup%20vegetation%20populated_places%20railway%20power_network%20manmade_features%20designated_areas%20water_features%20water_saturated_soils%20relief%20contours%20toponymy%20contourscale=140.00mapxy=1281552.5697346777%20-273673.4692181579map_layer[northarrow]_class[0]_style[0]=ANGLE%20-14.587661326428645mapsize=750%20666urlappend=

The error also appears in the Ibycus map.

Also, if you look north along the boundary between these 2 map sections,
you will see other discrepancies.

I have topo maps of the area that I bought at least 10 years ago.  They
appear to be scans of paper maps.  When I line up the 2 map sections,
everything lines up (roads, rivers, elevation lines, etc.). 

It seems to me that some errors (albeit fairly minor) were introduced in
the digital form of the map.  Then the errors were propagated to CanVec.

Is there a way to get the map corrected?

Bob

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