Re: [Talk-ca] Some feedback on import quality in Toronto
Thanks for the heads up. As I said, we are not in a rush here, and will first transfer the discussion to the Montreal list, then start a page on the import wiki and take it from there. On top, the pre-processing will be a bit of work as well. There is lots of data for the City of Montreal that can be imported: fire and police stations, free wifi access, traffic lights, swimming pools to name but a few. For now, we are talk about including the address and building heights into the building import. I know from reading the Montreal list that someone else is importing bus stops at the moment. Cheers, Tim On 2019-02-16 13:07, John Whelan wrote: If CC-BY 4.0 works great. I'd go for any addresses etc and any bus stops you can get hold of as well. Just be aware that we had a fairly large number of questions asked about the license etc when we did Ottawa and one of the people questioning referred the license to the LWG. Even the basis of CANVEC licensing came into question at the time. Many of the questions came from German and other European mappers. I understand the City of Toronto's Open Data license was referred as well but that was about two years ago and I note that the LWG web site has no mention of it so it is probably still in the queue. Good Luck Cheerio John Tim Elrick wrote on 2019-02-16 12:22 PM: Hi John, Thanks for pointing me to the license website. The open data of the City of Montreal is licensed CC-BY 4.0 and the City has explicitly granted OSM the right to use the data on top of that. See: http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/portail/licence/ StatsCan's Open Building Database uses exactly the same data source, however, as I pointed out in my last e-mail, it did not split the building blocks into actual buildings. The open data of the City of Montreal, furthermore, includes building heights which are lost in the OBD. These are the reasons why we would like to import the original open data. Cheers, Tim On 2019-02-16 11:21, john whelan wrote: When you look at importing Montreal you might like to look at the following first. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants Note if the Montreal data in available through Stats Can and the federal government open data license it might be better to use that data source from a licensing perspective. Although data can be given to OpenStreetMap I don't think there in a foolproof method of recording the fact. If one person has the paper record fine but if they are no longer part of the community then there maybe a problem if the license is challenged. Cheerio John On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 00:04, Tim Elrick mailto:o...@elrick.de>> wrote: Hi all, After following the building import discussion for a while now, I wanted to chime in as well. After moving to Montréal from Germany recently, I got more engaged with the local mappers here in MTL (beforehand, I was more analysing OSM data scientifically). I took part in the initial meeting of the Building Canada 2020 initiative, in which great interest in the project was expressed by many institutions, organizations and businesses. However, apart from Statistics Canada, municipalities and OSMappers no one seemed to be willing to invest into the effort to support the initiative with manpower or funding (to my knowledge). Therefore, I found it quite impressive what StatCan has achieved with the Open Building Database and do not share the view of some on this list that the initiative got off on the wrong foot; but that all water under the bridge now. So, yes, there seems to be some interest to use the data from the Open Building Database in OSM easily. However, I am also hesitant, that one massive import can be the answer. I'm generally hesitant with imports as such, maybe because I was acculturated in OSM in Germany where OSMappers value original entries much more than secondary data. Further, I'm skeptical, that secondary data is necessary better than original data (even from mapathons). I initiated two mapathons with university students in the context of Building Canada 2020. Both mapathons resulted in mostly nice buildings, I would say - and, when there is the odd not-so-nice building, there is still the validation step as we always used the tasking manager [1]. By the way, both mapathons used the ID editor; and, of course, you can square buildings in ID as well; so, I don't really understand the ID editor bashing that appears on this list here now and then. That said, of course, I prefer JOSM over ID as it is the more versatile tool, but to introduce interested persons to editing in OSM, ID is really nice. I'm even more skeptical about imports after Yaro pointed us to the Texas import [2]. I wonder why there was no outcry there (or maybe there was and I did not hear about it) - the imported data is terrible: no
Re: [Talk-ca] Some feedback on import quality in Toronto
If CC-BY 4.0 works great. I'd go for any addresses etc and any bus stops you can get hold of as well. Just be aware that we had a fairly large number of questions asked about the license etc when we did Ottawa and one of the people questioning referred the license to the LWG. Even the basis of CANVEC licensing came into question at the time. Many of the questions came from German and other European mappers. I understand the City of Toronto's Open Data license was referred as well but that was about two years ago and I note that the LWG web site has no mention of it so it is probably still in the queue. Good Luck Cheerio John Tim Elrick wrote on 2019-02-16 12:22 PM: Hi John, Thanks for pointing me to the license website. The open data of the City of Montreal is licensed CC-BY 4.0 and the City has explicitly granted OSM the right to use the data on top of that. See: http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/portail/licence/ StatsCan's Open Building Database uses exactly the same data source, however, as I pointed out in my last e-mail, it did not split the building blocks into actual buildings. The open data of the City of Montreal, furthermore, includes building heights which are lost in the OBD. These are the reasons why we would like to import the original open data. Cheers, Tim On 2019-02-16 11:21, john whelan wrote: When you look at importing Montreal you might like to look at the following first. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants Note if the Montreal data in available through Stats Can and the federal government open data license it might be better to use that data source from a licensing perspective. Although data can be given to OpenStreetMap I don't think there in a foolproof method of recording the fact. If one person has the paper record fine but if they are no longer part of the community then there maybe a problem if the license is challenged. Cheerio John On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 00:04, Tim Elrick mailto:o...@elrick.de>> wrote: Hi all, After following the building import discussion for a while now, I wanted to chime in as well. After moving to Montréal from Germany recently, I got more engaged with the local mappers here in MTL (beforehand, I was more analysing OSM data scientifically). I took part in the initial meeting of the Building Canada 2020 initiative, in which great interest in the project was expressed by many institutions, organizations and businesses. However, apart from Statistics Canada, municipalities and OSMappers no one seemed to be willing to invest into the effort to support the initiative with manpower or funding (to my knowledge). Therefore, I found it quite impressive what StatCan has achieved with the Open Building Database and do not share the view of some on this list that the initiative got off on the wrong foot; but that all water under the bridge now. So, yes, there seems to be some interest to use the data from the Open Building Database in OSM easily. However, I am also hesitant, that one massive import can be the answer. I'm generally hesitant with imports as such, maybe because I was acculturated in OSM in Germany where OSMappers value original entries much more than secondary data. Further, I'm skeptical, that secondary data is necessary better than original data (even from mapathons). I initiated two mapathons with university students in the context of Building Canada 2020. Both mapathons resulted in mostly nice buildings, I would say - and, when there is the odd not-so-nice building, there is still the validation step as we always used the tasking manager [1]. By the way, both mapathons used the ID editor; and, of course, you can square buildings in ID as well; so, I don't really understand the ID editor bashing that appears on this list here now and then. That said, of course, I prefer JOSM over ID as it is the more versatile tool, but to introduce interested persons to editing in OSM, ID is really nice. I'm even more skeptical about imports after Yaro pointed us to the Texas import [2]. I wonder why there was no outcry there (or maybe there was and I did not hear about it) - the imported data is terrible: no parallel to street buildings, no right angles, sometimes even not the right size of building parts. Fact is that secondary data buildings footprints can be from many different data sources - from AutoCAD, handdrawn by a municipal GIS experts to photogrammetric and satellite machine learning sources; all those sources have their peculiarities, which I think, you cannot satisfy in one import plan fits all - especially, as the Open Building Database in Canada is stitched together from those very different sources. In Montreal, e.g., the source for the Open Building Database is the données ouvertes des batime
Re: [Talk-ca] Some feedback on import quality in Toronto
Hi John, Thanks for pointing me to the license website. The open data of the City of Montreal is licensed CC-BY 4.0 and the City has explicitly granted OSM the right to use the data on top of that. See: http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/portail/licence/ StatsCan's Open Building Database uses exactly the same data source, however, as I pointed out in my last e-mail, it did not split the building blocks into actual buildings. The open data of the City of Montreal, furthermore, includes building heights which are lost in the OBD. These are the reasons why we would like to import the original open data. Cheers, Tim On 2019-02-16 11:21, john whelan wrote: When you look at importing Montreal you might like to look at the following first. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants Note if the Montreal data in available through Stats Can and the federal government open data license it might be better to use that data source from a licensing perspective. Although data can be given to OpenStreetMap I don't think there in a foolproof method of recording the fact. If one person has the paper record fine but if they are no longer part of the community then there maybe a problem if the license is challenged. Cheerio John On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 00:04, Tim Elrick mailto:o...@elrick.de>> wrote: Hi all, After following the building import discussion for a while now, I wanted to chime in as well. After moving to Montréal from Germany recently, I got more engaged with the local mappers here in MTL (beforehand, I was more analysing OSM data scientifically). I took part in the initial meeting of the Building Canada 2020 initiative, in which great interest in the project was expressed by many institutions, organizations and businesses. However, apart from Statistics Canada, municipalities and OSMappers no one seemed to be willing to invest into the effort to support the initiative with manpower or funding (to my knowledge). Therefore, I found it quite impressive what StatCan has achieved with the Open Building Database and do not share the view of some on this list that the initiative got off on the wrong foot; but that all water under the bridge now. So, yes, there seems to be some interest to use the data from the Open Building Database in OSM easily. However, I am also hesitant, that one massive import can be the answer. I'm generally hesitant with imports as such, maybe because I was acculturated in OSM in Germany where OSMappers value original entries much more than secondary data. Further, I'm skeptical, that secondary data is necessary better than original data (even from mapathons). I initiated two mapathons with university students in the context of Building Canada 2020. Both mapathons resulted in mostly nice buildings, I would say - and, when there is the odd not-so-nice building, there is still the validation step as we always used the tasking manager [1]. By the way, both mapathons used the ID editor; and, of course, you can square buildings in ID as well; so, I don't really understand the ID editor bashing that appears on this list here now and then. That said, of course, I prefer JOSM over ID as it is the more versatile tool, but to introduce interested persons to editing in OSM, ID is really nice. I'm even more skeptical about imports after Yaro pointed us to the Texas import [2]. I wonder why there was no outcry there (or maybe there was and I did not hear about it) - the imported data is terrible: no parallel to street buildings, no right angles, sometimes even not the right size of building parts. Fact is that secondary data buildings footprints can be from many different data sources - from AutoCAD, handdrawn by a municipal GIS experts to photogrammetric and satellite machine learning sources; all those sources have their peculiarities, which I think, you cannot satisfy in one import plan fits all - especially, as the Open Building Database in Canada is stitched together from those very different sources. In Montreal, e.g., the source for the Open Building Database is the données ouvertes des batiments. This is photogrammetric imagery probably turned into AutoCAD files, which then were exported to a shapefile and geojson. The building outlines are impressively precise, however, the open data files contain building blocks not single buildings [3], however, offer building dividers in a separate shapefile (I assume due to the export from AutoCAD, see second image in [3]). Unfortunately, the Open Building Database only included those building blocks in their data set, making it not very easy to import into OSM (as they do not include the building dividers). Hence, a bit of non-trivial pre-processing of the original données ouvertes des batim
Re: [Talk-ca] Some feedback on import quality in Toronto
When you look at importing Montreal you might like to look at the following first. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants Note if the Montreal data in available through Stats Can and the federal government open data license it might be better to use that data source from a licensing perspective. Although data can be given to OpenStreetMap I don't think there in a foolproof method of recording the fact. If one person has the paper record fine but if they are no longer part of the community then there maybe a problem if the license is challenged. Cheerio John On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 00:04, Tim Elrick wrote: > Hi all, > > After following the building import discussion for a while now, I wanted > to chime in as well. > > After moving to Montréal from Germany recently, I got more engaged with > the local mappers here in MTL (beforehand, I was more analysing OSM data > scientifically). > > I took part in the initial meeting of the Building Canada 2020 initiative, > in which great interest in the project was expressed by many institutions, > organizations and businesses. However, apart from Statistics Canada, > municipalities and OSMappers no one seemed to be willing to invest into the > effort to support the initiative with manpower or funding (to my > knowledge). Therefore, I found it quite impressive what StatCan has > achieved with the Open Building Database and do not share the view of some > on this list that the initiative got off on the wrong foot; but that all > water under the bridge now. > > So, yes, there seems to be some interest to use the data from the Open > Building Database in OSM easily. However, I am also hesitant, that one > massive import can be the answer. > > I'm generally hesitant with imports as such, maybe because I was > acculturated in OSM in Germany where OSMappers value original entries much > more than secondary data. Further, I'm skeptical, that secondary data is > necessary better than original data (even from mapathons). I initiated two > mapathons with university students in the context of Building Canada 2020. > Both mapathons resulted in mostly nice buildings, I would say - and, when > there is the odd not-so-nice building, there is still the validation step > as we always used the tasking manager [1]. By the way, both mapathons used > the ID editor; and, of course, you can square buildings in ID as well; so, > I don't really understand the ID editor bashing that appears on this list > here now and then. That said, of course, I prefer JOSM over ID as it is the > more versatile tool, but to introduce interested persons to editing in OSM, > ID is really nice. > > I'm even more skeptical about imports after Yaro pointed us to the Texas > import [2]. I wonder why there was no outcry there (or maybe there was and > I did not hear about it) - the imported data is terrible: no parallel to > street buildings, no right angles, sometimes even not the right size of > building parts. Fact is that secondary data buildings footprints can be > from many different data sources - from AutoCAD, handdrawn by a municipal > GIS experts to photogrammetric and satellite machine learning sources; all > those sources have their peculiarities, which I think, you cannot satisfy > in one import plan fits all - especially, as the Open Building Database in > Canada is stitched together from those very different sources. > > In Montreal, e.g., the source for the Open Building Database is the > données ouvertes des batiments. This is photogrammetric imagery probably > turned into AutoCAD files, which then were exported to a shapefile and > geojson. The building outlines are impressively precise, however, the open > data files contain building blocks not single buildings [3], however, offer > building dividers in a separate shapefile (I assume due to the export from > AutoCAD, see second image in [3]). Unfortunately, the Open Building > Database only included those building blocks in their data set, making it > not very easy to import into OSM (as they do not include the building > dividers). Hence, a bit of non-trivial pre-processing of the original > données ouvertes des batiments would be necessary to import them into OSM > (as the building divider file does also include roof extensions and roof > shapes). The local OSM group is discussing this pre-processing for a while > now at their local meetings (we started discussing this even before the > Building Canada 2020 initiative started). As the City of Montreal has > granted OSM the explicit use of their open data file, the way forward, we > think, is to pre-process the original files. Further, there is extensive > overlap of existing buildings with the open data file. Therefore, the > imports in Montreal would have to happen in very small batches to not > destroy the work of other OSMappers. > > I am also pretty skeptical about the simplification of the secondary data > before importing that was suggested on the list here
