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

[Clifford Snow]

Stewart,
We just has our monthly OSM get together in Burnaby. Wish I had seen your
post before. If you can find anything, it would be much appreciated.

Clifford

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Stewart C. Russell 
wrote:

> I saw a flyer when I was in Burnaby this past week for a call for
> volunteers to develop a community map. I wasn't able to keep a copy (and
> there's nothing on burnaby.ca about it) but it looked like the city was
> wanting to crowdsource a local map of facilities and points of interest.
>
> I might be able to get one of my coworkers in that office to get a copy if
> there's anyone local in BC who is interested.
>
> cheers,
>
>  Stewart
>
> (quite far from Burnaby)
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

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

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

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myriad outdated wiki pages) is no fun for anyone, least of all volunteers.

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

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

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Jan 26, 2018, at 8:02 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
> If we got the Toronto licence approved tomorrow and none of the
> municipal licences changed for the better, at this rate we'd have all of
> the BC2020 data cleared for use by 2088 …

Now, no reason to let optimism wither; nobody is saying the project should 
change its name to 2090 or 2050 or even 2030.  (Hm, 2030?  Uh, scratch that I 
said that).

OSM is a medium-to-longer term project.  BC2020 is very ambitious:  it is in 
its early days.  Let throats clear, flags fly up flagpoles, wheels to remain in 
motion, dialog to continue and good work to continue.  Including the solid task 
of planting acorns so that mighty oaks may grow.

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

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Jan 26, 2018, at 6:42 PM, john whelan  wrote:
> I'm under the impression that Ottawa was the first city to move to the Open 
> Data 2.0 licence created by Treasury Board.
> 
> I'm also under the impression that it is the only one that has had its 
> benediction from the legal working group.  Treasury Board of Canada put quite 
> a lot of effort into updating their 1.0 license and aligning their 2.0 
> license with other organisations.  I don't believe their 1.0 license meets 
> OSM licensing requirements. 
> 
> I seem to recall they have a municipality kit to assist municipalities with 
> Open Data.
> 
> There seems to be rather more green boxes than I would have expected.  I 
> would hope they all have been approved by the Legal Working Group or are an 
> exact clone of the TB municipality one as Ottawa is.

What I did was to "back-populate" the list of "approved" (by whom?  when?  how 
did these get here?) list of Canadian cities from
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities

into OSM's BC2020 wiki.

OK, we know Ottawa should be green:  check.

A couple (Edmonton, Yellowknife) imply contradictions:  an entry on the 
Contributors page, but a status in the table which says "nope, can't use data 
with this licence."  Those are yellow, meaning "need disambiguation:"  check.

Toronto is yellow, as its licence is said to be "under discussion since early 
2017."  Check.

Vancouver is green, as it is on the Contributors page (implying its licence is 
OK) and its "Completion in OSM" is yellow and says "In Progress."  Seems like a 
"check."

Montreal is green, (ditto), yet its "Completion in OSM" is red and says "0% 
complete."  Check.

Surrey, York, Halifax and Gatineau are green, (ditto), and their "Completion in 
OSM" cells are simply, well, empty.  So they are empty and colorless.

If there is something incorrect, ANYBODY (in or out of OSM who has a wiki 
account) can change these to be more accurate!

Capturing ADDITIONAL status harmonization with whatever might be going on in 
OSM-CA-TM is an ongoing bit of work to be done which appears to be only in the 
most early of contemplation/discussion.

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

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

[john whelan]

I'm under the impression that Ottawa was the first city to move to the Open
Data 2.0 licence created by Treasury Board.

I'm also under the impression that it is the only one that has had its
benediction from the legal working group.  Treasury Board of Canada put
quite a lot of effort into updating their 1.0 license and aligning their
2.0 license with other organisations.  I don't believe their 1.0 license
meets OSM licensing requirements.

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

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

Cheerio John

On 26 January 2018 at 20:27, OSM Volunteer stevea  wrote:

> The first (municipal) OD table in
> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_
> Canada_2020/building_OD_tables
> now uses green/yellow/red color-coding to better display accurate status
> in those cells of rows in the "License" and "Completion in OSM" columns.
> These give a certain "at a glance" view of both of these.
>
> This was neither difficult nor did it take very long.  Now that this wiki
> and the "main" BC2020 wiki come closer to accurately describing the state
> of the project, it shouldn't be hard to update a line here, a column there,
> a link or two to stay synced.  Please, in a project with scope as vast as
> this, our open wikis in this project guide, inform, present a forum to
> discuss and document, PLUS, they are easy to edit and update with current
> status.
>
> In my opinion, there is still some work to do to better organize and
> harmonize the use of the OSM Canada Task Manager tasks with this, as a
> large majority of Tasks in the TM have the word "building" in their title.
> OSM can get there.
>
> I like what I see, the project is now better focused and intra-OSM
> communication improves by the day.  From crawling to toddling to walking:
> excellent.
>
> Happy weekend everyone,
> SteveA
> California
> ___
> 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] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

The first (municipal) OD table in
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020/building_OD_tables
now uses green/yellow/red color-coding to better display accurate status in 
those cells of rows in the "License" and "Completion in OSM" columns.  These 
give a certain "at a glance" view of both of these.

This was neither difficult nor did it take very long.  Now that this wiki and 
the "main" BC2020 wiki come closer to accurately describing the state of the 
project, it shouldn't be hard to update a line here, a column there, a link or 
two to stay synced.  Please, in a project with scope as vast as this, our open 
wikis in this project guide, inform, present a forum to discuss and document, 
PLUS, they are easy to edit and update with current status.

In my opinion, there is still some work to do to better organize and harmonize 
the use of the OSM Canada Task Manager tasks with this, as a large majority of 
Tasks in the TM have the word "building" in their title.  OSM can get there.

I like what I see, the project is now better focused and intra-OSM 
communication improves by the day.  From crawling to toddling to walking:  
excellent.

Happy weekend everyone,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

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

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

cheers,

 Stewart

(quite far from Burnaby)

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

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

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Thanks for this additional clarity, Stewart.

May I politely suggest you or another helpful volunteer update this "table 
wiki" to reflect that, perhaps with some text that says so?

If it makes sense to "blurb a note" into the Comments cell for a particular row 
(Grand Prairie, Muskoka, Edmonton), it seems that would stitch together the 
communication.  (Using the wiki, in the OSM way, so others can "at a glance" 
see status, progress...).

I find interesting regarding Edmonton, for example, that even with an 
incompatible licence (I don't know if north of the border it's with a c or an 
s) the Comments cell reads "80% done."  That "seems" like a contradiction, 
though, of course, it can't be.  It appears to mean "buildings are being 
entered around Edmonton regardless of the license incompatibilities."  In my 
experience in OSM, that sounds like a conversation, as we have here in talk-ca.

Yes, so, we're having it.  Part in talk-ca, part in the wiki, part in the map, 
part in email, part in the real world over coffee and talk.

More in the wiki, please?  Thanks, it feels like my work is done here!

SteveA
California

> On Jan 26, 2018, at 2:13 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
> On 2018-01-25 04:00 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>> The other wiki (linked to in the "main" BC2020i wiki's "Inventory of
>> Current Building Data Sets" section): 
>> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020/building_OD_tables
> 
> Note that the licence compatibility column as it stands is a bit
> misleading now that the table has been split from the main page. There
> are a lot of entries that say ODL 1.0 or OGL 2.0 for instance. These
> will be the local spin a data licence, and each one will need to be
> individually approved by the LWG before the import process can be
> started. Examples:
> 
> * Grand Prairie - http://www.cityofgp.com/index.aspx?page=2332
> 
> * Muskoka -
> http://map.muskoka.on.ca/exponare/Open_Data/Open%20Government%20Licence_District%20Municipality%20of%20Muskoka%20GIS_2014.pdf
> 
> We don't yet have one licence that rules them all. For instance, the
> Edmonton imports (such as
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28190793) look unapproved and
> incompatible.


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

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

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

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

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

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

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

 Stewart

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