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

[Begin Daniel]

Well, only very large buildings can be found as polygons in the Canvec product.
Furthermore, NRCan did not update the Canvec buildings layer for more than 20 
years (the oldest is 1944), with only a few exceptions…

Daniel

From: James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 22 October, 2016 10:54
To: Stewart C. Russell
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Import] Ottawa Buildings & Addresses 
[Statistics Canada project]

http://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/pub/nrcan_rncan/vector/canvec/shp/ManMade/
50K man made just seems to be nodes of where buildings are located, instead of 
outlines.
Judging by :
http://atlas.gc.ca/toporama/en/index.html
They have a few buildings in CanVEC, but not all of them. Seems like massive 
buildings like schools and malls, residential buildings are out.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Stewart C. Russell 
> wrote:
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



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Light rail mapping questions

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Mike,

Am 2016-10-22 um 20:43 schrieb Mike Boos:
> I don't know if I'd characterize this as a "Karlsuhe model" train-tram -
> the system is entirely within a single urban area (even if it does span two
> adjacent cities), it just uses an existing rail corridor in some places.
> Unlike the Karlsuhe system, the vehicles have only a single operating
> voltage.

There are lines in Karlsruhe which use only the tram current (750 Volt
DC), e.g. line S1 from Hochstetten via Karlsruhe to Bad Herrenalb. This
line shares tracks with freight trains between Lepoldshafen Frankfurter
Straße and Welschneureuter Straße. That's similar to the train track in
Waterloo.

>> Tag the tracks as they look like. Sections where tracks share space with
>> cars [1] are railway=tram. Where the trams are physically separated from
>> the traffic [2], it's a railway=light_rail. That's how tagging works in
>> cities which only have *one* tram/light rail system. If the city has two
>> or three (low-floor tram and high-floor light rail; some German cities),
>> it becomes more difficult because we also try to get the systems
>> distinguishable (there are use cases). But that is not important now and
>> the reason why Germans discuss correct tagging of trams, light rails and
>> subways at their OSM Forum over multiple pages and threads. :-)
>>
> 
> There are not really spaces shared with cars, (thank goodness) so the only
> appropriate tag along roads is light_rail.

It does not share the space but according to your photos at Twitter the
trackbed seems to be paved and cars could use it. A proper light rail
has either ballast or grass between the tracks, i.e. car drivers will
recognize that the cannot use this space.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jx4Z1BdL_nhENDjJMxHI2w
http://www.regum.de/en/rail_products/lawn_track

There is no sharp border between trams and light rails.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Light rail mapping questions

[Michael Reichert]

Hi

Am 2016-10-22 um 21:11 schrieb James:
> Could lanes work?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes
> 
> Example:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Two_driving_directions
> 
> What ever the train tag would be:
> train:lanes:forward=no|yes
> train:lanes:backwards=no|yes
> Then for passenger cars would be opposite?
> car:lanes:forward=yes|no
> car:lanes:backwards=yes|no
>
> I'm not sure about this maybe Micheal has more insight on this

I would use different tags but the ideas is similar.

The right/back of the photo:
lanes = 4
lanes:forward = 2
lanes:backward = 2
access:lanes:forward=no|yes
access:lanes:backward=no|yes
tram:lanes:forward = yes|no
tram:lanes:backward = yes|no

The left of the photo:
lanes = 4
lanes:forward = 2
lanes:backward = 1
turn:lanes:forward=
tram:lanes:backward = no|yes
access:lanes:backward = yes |no

Differences to James' suggestion:
My suggestion is compatible with the widely used lanes tagging scheme. I
used "backward", not "backwards" (see Taginfo). I used "tram", not "train".

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Light rail mapping questions

[James]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:train

Train does exist as a vehicle type

As for cars:
I think it would be motor_vehicle:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motor_vehicle

I got the vehicle types from:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions

On Oct 22, 2016 3:10 PM, wrote:

> Could lanes work?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes
>
> Example:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Two_driving_directions
>
> What ever the train tag would be:
> train:lanes:forward=no|yes
> train:lanes:backwards=no|yes
> Then for passenger cars would be opposite?
> car:lanes:forward=yes|no
> car:lanes:backwards=yes|no
>
> I'm not sure about this maybe Micheal has more insight on this
>
> On Oct 22, 2016 2:45 PM, "Mike Boos"  wrote:
>
> Thanks Michael for your reply
>
>
>> Am 18.10.2016 um 03:52 schrieb Mike Boos:
>> > Along on-road sections, the dedicated rail right-of-way moves from
>> > centre-running to the outsides of the street at certain intersections.
>> (A
>> > by-product of some of the political compromises in route choices.) Does
>> > anyone know of any examples of tracks going from the centre to the side
>> of
>> > the road with traffic lanes in OSM? I expect these are going to look
>> messy.
>>
>> Look at any German, Austrian or Swiss city of your choice where every
>> tram track is mapped as a single way in OSM (i.e. no tracks=2). I need
>> more details (show us photos) to give a useful answer.
>>
>
> Here's an example of an intersection that's largely complete:
> https://twitter.com/mikeboos/status/789892670453723136
> The tracks on the right/behind of most of the photos are centre-running
> between the two directions of car travel. Across the intersection, on the
> left of the photos, one track changes sides with the travel lane so that it
> lies between the sidewalk and the roadway. (The other track branches off
> onto the perpendicular road.)
>
> > There are also portions of the line that will share track with a freight
>> > corridor. From what I can tell, convention appears to be to tag it with
>> the
>> > heavier mode, i.e. railway=rail instead of railway=light_rail. However,
>> the
>> > use of the track for freight is quite small - at most one freight train
>> > to/from Elmira uses the track at night, when light rail service won't be
>> > operating. Should the track still be marked as 'rail' instead of
>> > 'light_rail,' or should we attempt to have the tags represent the
>> dominant
>> > use? (At present, some of these are tagged as railway=construction, even
>> > though the freight train has been consistently using it overnight. This
>> > section is also largely complete.)
>>
>> Yes. If the track is still usable for freight trains (even if limited to
>> certain hours), it is a normal railway track and therefore gets
>> railway=rail. What you describe is called "Karlsuhe model" – don't
>> confuse it with our tagging scheme at OSM. ;-)
>>
>> I assume, that some people of Grand River Transit have visited the
>> German cities Karlsruhe and/or Kassel. :-) The first one has been
>> operating a tram-train system for more than 40 years.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_Stadtbahn
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassel_RegioTram
>>
>
> I don't know if I'd characterize this as a "Karlsuhe model" train-tram -
> the system is entirely within a single urban area (even if it does span two
> adjacent cities), it just uses an existing rail corridor in some places.
> Unlike the Karlsuhe system, the vehicles have only a single operating
> voltage.
>
>
>> Tag the tracks as they look like. Sections where tracks share space with
>> cars [1] are railway=tram. Where the trams are physically separated from
>> the traffic [2], it's a railway=light_rail. That's how tagging works in
>> cities which only have *one* tram/light rail system. If the city has two
>> or three (low-floor tram and high-floor light rail; some German cities),
>> it becomes more difficult because we also try to get the systems
>> distinguishable (there are use cases). But that is not important now and
>> the reason why Germans discuss correct tagging of trams, light rails and
>> subways at their OSM Forum over multiple pages and threads. :-)
>>
>
> There are not really spaces shared with cars, (thank goodness) so the only
> appropriate tag along roads is light_rail.
>
> > Further, there is gauntlet track to allow freight trains to pass station
>> > platforms. Do we tag the track closest to the platform as
>> > railway=light_rail and the outer track as railway=rail? There's some
>> > discussion here on gauntlet tracks here that suggests this is the case
>> in
>> > Europe: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=29131
>>
>> It is the case in Kaufungen near the city of Kassel which has a
>> Karlsruhe-like tram-train system ("Regiotram").
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haltestelle_Niederka
>> ufungen_Mitte_02.JPG
>>
>> Yes, the track for heavy 

Re: [Talk-ca] Light rail mapping questions

[James]

Could lanes work?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes

Example:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Two_driving_directions

What ever the train tag would be:
train:lanes:forward=no|yes
train:lanes:backwards=no|yes
Then for passenger cars would be opposite?
car:lanes:forward=yes|no
car:lanes:backwards=yes|no

I'm not sure about this maybe Micheal has more insight on this

On Oct 22, 2016 2:45 PM, "Mike Boos"  wrote:

Thanks Michael for your reply


> Am 18.10.2016 um 03:52 schrieb Mike Boos:
> > Along on-road sections, the dedicated rail right-of-way moves from
> > centre-running to the outsides of the street at certain intersections. (A
> > by-product of some of the political compromises in route choices.) Does
> > anyone know of any examples of tracks going from the centre to the side
> of
> > the road with traffic lanes in OSM? I expect these are going to look
> messy.
>
> Look at any German, Austrian or Swiss city of your choice where every
> tram track is mapped as a single way in OSM (i.e. no tracks=2). I need
> more details (show us photos) to give a useful answer.
>

Here's an example of an intersection that's largely complete:
https://twitter.com/mikeboos/status/789892670453723136
The tracks on the right/behind of most of the photos are centre-running
between the two directions of car travel. Across the intersection, on the
left of the photos, one track changes sides with the travel lane so that it
lies between the sidewalk and the roadway. (The other track branches off
onto the perpendicular road.)

> There are also portions of the line that will share track with a freight
> > corridor. From what I can tell, convention appears to be to tag it with
> the
> > heavier mode, i.e. railway=rail instead of railway=light_rail. However,
> the
> > use of the track for freight is quite small - at most one freight train
> > to/from Elmira uses the track at night, when light rail service won't be
> > operating. Should the track still be marked as 'rail' instead of
> > 'light_rail,' or should we attempt to have the tags represent the
> dominant
> > use? (At present, some of these are tagged as railway=construction, even
> > though the freight train has been consistently using it overnight. This
> > section is also largely complete.)
>
> Yes. If the track is still usable for freight trains (even if limited to
> certain hours), it is a normal railway track and therefore gets
> railway=rail. What you describe is called "Karlsuhe model" – don't
> confuse it with our tagging scheme at OSM. ;-)
>
> I assume, that some people of Grand River Transit have visited the
> German cities Karlsruhe and/or Kassel. :-) The first one has been
> operating a tram-train system for more than 40 years.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_Stadtbahn
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassel_RegioTram
>

I don't know if I'd characterize this as a "Karlsuhe model" train-tram -
the system is entirely within a single urban area (even if it does span two
adjacent cities), it just uses an existing rail corridor in some places.
Unlike the Karlsuhe system, the vehicles have only a single operating
voltage.


> Tag the tracks as they look like. Sections where tracks share space with
> cars [1] are railway=tram. Where the trams are physically separated from
> the traffic [2], it's a railway=light_rail. That's how tagging works in
> cities which only have *one* tram/light rail system. If the city has two
> or three (low-floor tram and high-floor light rail; some German cities),
> it becomes more difficult because we also try to get the systems
> distinguishable (there are use cases). But that is not important now and
> the reason why Germans discuss correct tagging of trams, light rails and
> subways at their OSM Forum over multiple pages and threads. :-)
>

There are not really spaces shared with cars, (thank goodness) so the only
appropriate tag along roads is light_rail.

> Further, there is gauntlet track to allow freight trains to pass station
> > platforms. Do we tag the track closest to the platform as
> > railway=light_rail and the outer track as railway=rail? There's some
> > discussion here on gauntlet tracks here that suggests this is the case in
> > Europe: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=29131
>
> It is the case in Kaufungen near the city of Kassel which has a
> Karlsruhe-like tram-train system ("Regiotram").
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haltestelle_Niederka
> ufungen_Mitte_02.JPG
>
> Yes, the track for heavy trains is a normal train track (railway=rail)
> while the outer ones can only be used by light rail vehicles due to the
> smaller structure gauge. Therefore the light rail track gets
> railway=light_rail. Because we map one way per track at the centerline
> of the track, there are two (in Kaufungen three) parallel tracks and all
> get railway:interlaced=yes. This is useful for routing engines.
>
> If there were up to date Mapillary photos, I could give more 

Re: [Talk-ca] Light rail mapping questions

[Mike Boos]

Thanks Michael for your reply


> Am 18.10.2016 um 03:52 schrieb Mike Boos:
> > Along on-road sections, the dedicated rail right-of-way moves from
> > centre-running to the outsides of the street at certain intersections. (A
> > by-product of some of the political compromises in route choices.) Does
> > anyone know of any examples of tracks going from the centre to the side
> of
> > the road with traffic lanes in OSM? I expect these are going to look
> messy.
>
> Look at any German, Austrian or Swiss city of your choice where every
> tram track is mapped as a single way in OSM (i.e. no tracks=2). I need
> more details (show us photos) to give a useful answer.
>

Here's an example of an intersection that's largely complete:
https://twitter.com/mikeboos/status/789892670453723136
The tracks on the right/behind of most of the photos are centre-running
between the two directions of car travel. Across the intersection, on the
left of the photos, one track changes sides with the travel lane so that it
lies between the sidewalk and the roadway. (The other track branches off
onto the perpendicular road.)

> There are also portions of the line that will share track with a freight
> > corridor. From what I can tell, convention appears to be to tag it with
> the
> > heavier mode, i.e. railway=rail instead of railway=light_rail. However,
> the
> > use of the track for freight is quite small - at most one freight train
> > to/from Elmira uses the track at night, when light rail service won't be
> > operating. Should the track still be marked as 'rail' instead of
> > 'light_rail,' or should we attempt to have the tags represent the
> dominant
> > use? (At present, some of these are tagged as railway=construction, even
> > though the freight train has been consistently using it overnight. This
> > section is also largely complete.)
>
> Yes. If the track is still usable for freight trains (even if limited to
> certain hours), it is a normal railway track and therefore gets
> railway=rail. What you describe is called "Karlsuhe model" – don't
> confuse it with our tagging scheme at OSM. ;-)
>
> I assume, that some people of Grand River Transit have visited the
> German cities Karlsruhe and/or Kassel. :-) The first one has been
> operating a tram-train system for more than 40 years.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_Stadtbahn
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassel_RegioTram


I don't know if I'd characterize this as a "Karlsuhe model" train-tram -
the system is entirely within a single urban area (even if it does span two
adjacent cities), it just uses an existing rail corridor in some places.
Unlike the Karlsuhe system, the vehicles have only a single operating
voltage.


> Tag the tracks as they look like. Sections where tracks share space with
> cars [1] are railway=tram. Where the trams are physically separated from
> the traffic [2], it's a railway=light_rail. That's how tagging works in
> cities which only have *one* tram/light rail system. If the city has two
> or three (low-floor tram and high-floor light rail; some German cities),
> it becomes more difficult because we also try to get the systems
> distinguishable (there are use cases). But that is not important now and
> the reason why Germans discuss correct tagging of trams, light rails and
> subways at their OSM Forum over multiple pages and threads. :-)
>

There are not really spaces shared with cars, (thank goodness) so the only
appropriate tag along roads is light_rail.

> Further, there is gauntlet track to allow freight trains to pass station
> > platforms. Do we tag the track closest to the platform as
> > railway=light_rail and the outer track as railway=rail? There's some
> > discussion here on gauntlet tracks here that suggests this is the case in
> > Europe: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=29131
>
> It is the case in Kaufungen near the city of Kassel which has a
> Karlsruhe-like tram-train system ("Regiotram").
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haltestelle_Niederka
> ufungen_Mitte_02.JPG
>
> Yes, the track for heavy trains is a normal train track (railway=rail)
> while the outer ones can only be used by light rail vehicles due to the
> smaller structure gauge. Therefore the light rail track gets
> railway=light_rail. Because we map one way per track at the centerline
> of the track, there are two (in Kaufungen three) parallel tracks and all
> get railway:interlaced=yes. This is useful for routing engines.
>
> If there were up to date Mapillary photos, I could give more and better
> advice. (Mapillary photos by pedestrians are better because are located
> on the sidewalk)
>

I think that makes sense. Here's an example of the gauntlet track at one of
the stations:
https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/768589656581509122/photo/1


>
> Greetings from Karlsruhe
>



-- 
Mike Boos, MASc.
mike.b...@gmail.com
519-580-5804
http://real.uwaterloo.ca/~mboos
___
Talk-ca mailing list

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]

[James]

http://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/pub/nrcan_rncan/vector/canvec/shp/ManMade/
50K man made just seems to be nodes of where buildings are located, instead
of outlines.

Judging by :
http://atlas.gc.ca/toporama/en/index.html
They have a few buildings in CanVEC, but not all of them. Seems like
massive buildings like schools and malls, residential buildings are out.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Stewart C. Russell 
wrote:

> 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/e7f85da2e7943cb1a1d13772fbe144
> d3#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
>



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

Re: [Talk-ca] [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

[Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #326 10/11/2016-10/17/2016

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 326,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/8214/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM is brought to you by ... 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca