Re: [Talk-ca] A new available source of trail data in the Nanaimo area

On May 2, 2018, at 6:17 PM, Doug Hembry wrote: > I wanted to bring to the attention of Vancouver Island mappers a source of > some trail data in the Nanaimo area... After some back-and-forth consultation with the provider of the shapefile (Lynn, VP of the local horse

[Talk-ca] A message aimed more at Ottawa

Hello talk-ca: I'm resurrecting a month-old thread (about bicycling) as my initial post here. I'm a California-based (USA) nearly nine-year veteran of OSM. My wiki user page at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/User:Stevea shares some details of my mapping, including parks and other

Re: [Talk-ca] building imports (was Re: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 10)

> There are many more tasks on the task manager related to buildings if you are > so inclined to add them. Is that the best way to go? or people can check > the task manager for projects in their area of interest? (new tasks can be > easily added to the task manager... just ask!) I sort of

Re: [Talk-ca] building imports (was Re: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 10)

On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:55 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > I'm all for using the wiki, just want to consider the maintenance effort of > keeping the tasking manager in sync with the wiki. If someone wants to do > that, so much the better! Wikis can get stale quickly without

Re: [Talk-ca] building imports (was Re: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 10)

On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:13 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > I'm not who the "movers and shakers" are really. There is nobody really > driving this project that I am aware of (the wiki suggests we should have a > steering committee). Every time I see email sent to the original

Re: [Talk-ca] building imports (was Re: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 10)

On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > I should mention that there are others in Ottawa working on completing the > buildings. The City import only had urban buildings. Since the city of > Ottawa is the largest rural city in Canada, so much work still to do.

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

On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:16 PM, john whelan wrote: > About six years ago I wanted to import the local bus stops but the licences > weren't aligned. It took about five years for the Canadian Federal > Government to first adopt an Open Government license that was open enough

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

rnia > On Jan 26, 2018, at 2:13 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> 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): >> h

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

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

[Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

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

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

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;

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

On Jan 29, 2018, at 12:15 PM, john whelan wrote: > ·NRCan is working on a methodology to extract building footprints, > including topographic elevation and height attributes, from LiDAR > Traditionally OSM has not been happy with this sort of thing. The accuracy

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

Um, "dyed-in-the-wool." Steve ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

On Jan 29, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2018-01-29 04:37 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: >> >> OSM is delighted to receive building data in Canada, truly we are. >> (Provided they are high-quality data). I have heard the process o

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

On Jan 28, 2018, at 2:39 PM, James wrote: > CC Attribution is compatible with explicit permission, so Gatineau and > Montreal may remain on the list. Oh, how I sometimes dislike the word "may!" I know, I know, our good talk-ca dialog intends to help wider understanding

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 project

And...you're off and running (better and better). This is a process, everybody. Nobody wants to be slapping anybody around. I like the way we've been polite and patient with each other here. Regards, SteveA > On Jan 28, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > > Inline

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

On Jan 30, 2018, at 7:49 AM, Jonathan Brown wrote: > I don’t mind reviewing the OSM education wiki for lessons learned and > “promising practices” and seeing how it might inform the design of a mapathon > event aligned to the K-12 curricula and postsecondary capstone project

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

I repeat myself: less buzzword-compliance, please. More embracing of tried-and-true OSM tenets and culture, like front-loaded planning, ongoing, wide-area project management on something with nationwide scope as this, wiki writing/updating both intent and ongoing status, making available

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

OK, I've redacted Halifax changes. From four to three (municipalities with license now "green.") Steve > On Jan 28, 2018, at 7:39 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2018-01-28 09:16 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: >> Halifax also looks lik

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

On Jan 28, 2018, at 11:29 AM, john whelan wrote: > > If you map from Bing imagery there is no issue. If you do map from Bing > please use the building_tool plugin in JOSM. We tend to find new mappers > using iD are not very accurate. Thanks, John, that's a helpful

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

Smiling here, thank you for wiki-ing fresher status in both wikis! (It's quite doable, yes?). Steve > On Jan 28, 2018, at 3:40 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > Great, seems like we have a list of 3 ok ones: > Ottawa (approved license) > Gatineau + Montreal (explicit approval

[Talk-ca] BC2020 perspectives

I see so many simultaneous (some unconfused, some confused) efforts in OSM's WikiProject BC2020. Here, I identify what I see from an out-of-Canada yet long-time OSM contributor perspective. While the following must necessarily remain high-level, I do not wish to over-simplify, though it can

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

On Jan 28, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Jonathan Brown wrote: > If we have a description of the scope of the work involved in updating the > BC2020 OD tables, I don’t mind trying to find some senior students who could > be trained to take on this task for locations in Ontario. It

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

On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:27 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > Steve A, > I suspect nobody fully knows the current status of licences... So I would > agree with the action that you wrote: > every city except for Ottawa rightfully should be removed to end the > confusion, updating both

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

Halifax also looks like it grants explicit permission. Cautiously, I change Halifax to green (and remove strikeout type in Contributors), as I don't think we need LWG to "offer benediction" when the owner of the data grants explicit permission, as this link appears to do. If I'm wrong about

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

On Jan 26, 2018, at 8:12 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

> • There are additionally ~45 phone numbers that use letters instead of > digits (eg 1-555-GOT-BEER) > • ";" separator is used occasionally to indicate multiple phone > numbers. " ", "," and "/" are also used. > • There are random comments in the phone number field (not sure

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i and Mapathons with High Schools

I'd love to see in OSM (with a nod by STATCAN?) a Canadian "model building" (one will do), linked in the wiki. Richly-tagged and well done, to provide a standard to shoot for. To close a small, tight QA loop, as it were. "Here is what we'd like to see more of." Start small, document it.

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

Please see https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:level SteveA ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

> i believe "city of" is redundant as its a classification vs a name. > Would we say "village of maniwaki"? nope. What "we say" and what "OSM tags" can vary slightly. Although with names, "what we say" is a great place to start and very largely correct. This is a topic which can explode

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

On Feb 12, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Bernie Connors wrote: > I see the use of "City of" as indicating the official name of a municipality > as it is defined in legislation. Here in New Brunswick the Municipalities > Act‎ defines the official names of municipalities. Some opt to

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

On Feb 16, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Bill & Kathy Patterson wrote: > It would seem to me that an official place name should take precedence over > OSM protocols. If we expand the abbreviations (or contractions), of St. and > Ste., then are we not altering the

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

> On 2018-02-19 05:08 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> Have you passed by talk-gb? They have a fair amount of "St" names and >> some authority as to how to do things in OSM. I haven't, but I shall. As I say quite a bit (in our wiki, e.g. California/Railroads), "it's complicated around here."

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

It's good to see that admin_level tags (always 8? they might be 7 if township, that's a chunky topic...) are there. What I mean by "cutting room floor recycling" includes this thought: it couldn't hurt to update/touch-up/fix these after a cursory examination that's they are

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

at 12:50 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://saultstemarie.ca/ > > thats how its written. even on signs to there > > On Feb 16, 2018 3:47 PM, "OSM Volunteer stevea" <stevea...@softworkers.com> > wrote: > On Feb 16, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Matthew D

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

I stand corrected, thank you everybody. BTW I do my best not to abbreviate thinks like "DC" for District of Columbia, but I now better understand that "St." in many cases has now truly become the official name, abbreviation included. SteveA ___

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

We call it TALK-ca for a reason! We call it OPENStreetMap for a reason! Consensus doesn't always come easy! Thanks to everyone for good discussion. SteveA ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

Thank you, Matthew. As I said, "slavishly follow rules," no, not necessarily. "Understand the issues," yes, through good dialog. I like what I see here, it allows good consensus to emerge, tedious and perhaps even a bit annoying as it may be. :-) SteveA On Feb 19, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Matthew

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

Hi Matthew: You do fine work here, yet I have a concern about "Township." I don't know if in Canada, a Township is a bit of an "odd duck" like it is in the USA. In the USA, we have county as admin_level=6, township as admin_level=7 (in about one-third of states) and city/town/village as

Re: [Talk-ca] Montréal: Inconsistency in Public Transportation Provider's Name

ry good or even excellent and well-thought out and discussed, as are developing public_transport OSM data in Canada. We're making a great map. Thank you again for spirited and interesting discussion. SteveA California > On Jul 16, 2018, at 6:06 PM, Damien Riegel wrote: > > On 12 July 2018 at

Re: [Talk-ca] Montréal: Inconsistency in Public Transportation Provider's Name

ed with this and whilst we > > should cater to these foreign tourists I think what is on the signs locally > > will be less confusing to the locals unless of course we get many more > > people streaming in to escape Donald. > > > > Or have I misunderstood some p

Re: [Talk-ca] Montréal: Inconsistency in Public Transportation Provider's Name

Ayant embarqué à bord de nombreux trains à Paris (pour choisir l'une des nombreuses villes que j'ai embarquées dans les trains), OSM aux Halles dit "operator=RATP" et "name=RER B". Certains disent que la pure consistance est stupide. Je dis "trouver ce qui fonctionne et rester cohérent".

Re: [Talk-ca] Montréal: Inconsistency in Public Transportation Provider's Name

r d’OSM et continueraient d’atteindre cet objectif. Bonne journée, Etienne Californie > On Aug 12, 2018, at 4:59 PM, James wrote: > > Résumé très facile: Paris ou la france ≠ Le Québec. > Le Québec fait les chose très différente de la France. > > On Sun., Aug. 12, 2018, 8:36 p.m. OSM

Re: [Talk-ca] Montréal: Inconsistency in Public Transportation Provider's Name

probably get confused with this and whilst we > should cater to these foreign tourists I think what is on the signs locally > will be less confusing to the locals unless of course we get many more people > streaming in to escape Donald. > > Or have I misunderstood some poor

Re: [Talk-ca] GitHub app for BC2020i Challenge

On Sep 6, 2018, at 1:14 PM, john whelan wrote (replying to me, stevea): > > Hm, we tried to revive the wiki, a tried-and-true OSM methodology for doing > > EXACTLY that. Is there something wrong with that idea? > > No this project was initiated by Stats Canada, but without clear requirements

Re: [Talk-ca] GitHub app for BC2020i Challenge

> Personally I think if the BC2020i is to be revived mappers really need some > feedback on what has been done and what tags are of interest. Hm, we tried to revive the wiki, a tried-and-true OSM methodology for doing EXACTLY that. Is there something wrong with that idea? I've been trying to

Re: [Talk-ca] GitHub app for BC2020i Challenge

On Sep 6, 2018, at 4:30 PM, john whelan wrote: > The pilot project itself did manage to get a fair amount of accurate data > into OSM. That data is still there and can be used. It was instrumental in > supporting the HOT summit in Ottawa. It managed to raise awareness within > local

Re: [Talk-ca] Montréal: Inconsistency in Public Transportation Provider's Name

Hello Damien: I'm "meh, OK" with an operator=STM value, but I freely say I haven't checked in completely with whomever you mean by "the minority." (I "haven't heard of" any controversy one way or the other, STM or full-name. But that isn't saying much on my part). I watch what's up with

Re: [Talk-ca] Montréal: Inconsistency in Public Transportation Provider's Name

On Jul 12, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > Damien's question appears to be about nodes like > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/438843513, which has > name=Berri-UQAM, operator=Société de transport de Montréal. > short_name=STM seems inappropriate here, we could do >

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i and Mapathons with High Schools

On Jan 23, 2018, at 5:53 PM, john whelan wrote: > It should have been 60 per hour. Apols. I can probably map at one per five > seconds but new mappers did and will take much longer. The iD figures of > four to twenty buildings per mapathon session are real numbers. OK,

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i and Mapathons with High Schools

I agree that absolute novices unfamiliar with OSM are not what we might call "an ideal candidate," for BC2020i but it certainly has been and can be done. That said, "coming with Java preloaded" is a certain kind of "trigger warning" that "you have to be this tall to ride the ride." That's

[Talk-ca] A message aimed more at Ottawa

Oops, the bicycle router I wanted to refer to in my previous is http://cycle.travel by Richard Fairhurst (whom I inexplicably confused with Simon Poole). SteveA California ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-ca] A message aimed more at Ottawa

John Whelan says: > Thoughts? There are obviously "deep thoughts" going on regarding how OSM can document and provide better geo data, routing and maps for Canadian cyclists: my hat is off to the serious "front-loading" going on here and I wish to encourage it so that it may flourish.

Re: [Talk-ca] A message aimed more at Ottawa

James wrote: There's also documentation that Ottawa is using(not final thats why its not on the wiki) with example pictures: https://github.com/osmottawa/OSM-Bike-Ottawa-Tagging-Guide/blob/master/README.md There are differences with respect to US bike pathes Thanks for the link to that page,

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 Calgary Challenges and Best Practices

Whoops, put a closing quote on the alias (I truncated an apostrophe at the end of that line). And, of course, press return at the end of commands to the shell (command line interface). After this, you can "go get plugins" and configure them as you like. Now you are off and running JOSM on a

Re: [Talk-ca] Dartmouthmapmaker

Being as gentle (though not local) as I can be, I continue to assert that our wiki for BC2020 in general and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020#The_data_that_could_be_mapped as a specific section IN that wiki (calling attention to these tags, with

Re: [Talk-ca] Stats Canada new building outlines Open Data do we wish to import it?

On Nov 2, 2018, at 3:35 PM, Pierre Béland wrote: > La rédaction d' une page wiki pour l'ensemble du Canada peut répondre aux > exigences du groupe Import de OSM. Mais l'organisation doit être > décentralisée. Je conviens qu'il est plus facile de rédiger un "plan d'importation" unique pour

Re: [Talk-ca] Stats Canada new building outlines Open Data do we wish to import it?

On Nov 2, 2018, at 3:58 PM, John Whelan wrote: > So to paraphrase your reply. A centralised import plan in the wiki which > says the data is approved for import and should be tackled in chunks of some > sort of region since we are a decentralized organization. Which I think is > similar to

Re: [Talk-ca] Nova Scotia imports, and boundary=land_area

On Nov 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Дмитрий Киселев wrote: > Looks like the wiki needs amending to only list open data with the correct > license either separately or a note added to each entry. Mmmm, not "only," an Import Plan is required, too. That can be part of a wiki that describes the project

Re: [Talk-ca] Enablers and Barriers for Voluntary Participation in Crowdsourcing Platforms

On Nov 2, 2018, at 9:31 AM, John Whelan wrote: > My feeling is OpenStreetMap has two sides. The first is local adding local > knowledge to the map. The other I'll call armchair mapping. When Stats > Canada did the pilot it tapped the local Ottawa mappers who meet physically. Speaking from

Re: [Talk-ca] Open Database of Buildings / Base de données ouvertes sur les immeubles

Additionally, the greater OSM community looks forward to your Import Plan that follows our Import Guidelines ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines ). Regards, SteveA California > On Nov 1, 2018, at 11:22 AM, John Whelan wrote: > > I think on the OSM side we probably need to

Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 129, Issue 15

On Nov 5, 2018, at 7:29 AM, keith hartley wrote: > I saw it was a great job. But you're correct, I have no documentation on how > they did it. Licence process, wiki ( I feel Steve already yelling at his > computer) If you mean me, I'm saddened to hear that others think I "yell." Rather, my

Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination

On Nov 6, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Pierre Béland wrote: > Petit test rapide avec Overpass. J'observe que les clés suivantes sont > utilisées > highway=service > service=emergency_access > access=no > exemple https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19692719 > > La Requête Overpass ci-dessous avec paramètre

Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination

Between "out meta;" and "out meta qt;" there should be a >; but sometimes this gets mangled. Entre "out meta;" et "out meta qt;" il devrait y avoir un >; mais parfois cela est mutilé. So, I'm choosing to share an "OT share link:" Donc, je choisis de partager un "lien de partage OT:"

Re: [Talk-ca] Hydro Network (inland water) question

Heck, all kinds of things are fun to map: bike routes, railways, making sure provincial and TransCanada route relations are all lined up and tagged correctly, bus and public_transport, small details (micro-mapping), like gymnasium/library details and drinking fountain locations in

Re: [Talk-ca] Ongoing Canadian building import needs to be stopped, possibly reverted

On Jan 17, 2019, at 6:27 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > When no one is responding, sometimes it is because they are fine with > the message as-is. I read it. I was fine with it. This isn't an > Australian election. I'm not sure about the allusion to Australian elections, so I'll let that pass

Re: [Talk-ca] Ongoing Canadian building import needs to be stopped, possibly reverted

This is redirected (by request of its author) from a thread on the (talk-) imports mailing list at . On Jan 17, 2019, at 4:55 PM, John Whelan wrote: > The import was discussed on talk-ca and in my opinion there was a consensus > of opinion it should go ahead. The data comes from the

Re: [Talk-ca] Ongoing Canadian building import needs to be stopped, possibly reverted

The thread link is: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2019-January/005878.html SteveA ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import

On Jan 19, 2019, at 1:22 PM, john whelan wrote: > As a point of information the 2020 web page I think was started by Julia and > very heavily edited by Stevea. Sure I did, because it seriously lacked in the technical direction anybody would need to "map going forward" in the project/initiative

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

On Jan 19, 2019, at 2:01 PM, James wrote: > Is there no one that will analyse the data I've posted here? > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OK83yrPwMW4nefyu-6JsIInu0meK2rW6/view?usp=sharing > or are we just email thread warriors? Well, slow down there, cowboy, it is gigabytes of data and I've

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

with memory options > (Xms, Xmx), or it will crap out at 3.5GB > > On Sat., Jan. 19, 2019, 5:13 p.m. OSM Volunteer stevea > On Jan 19, 2019, at 2:01 PM, James wrote: > > Is there no one that will analyse the data I've posted here? > > https://drive.google.com/file/d

Re: [Talk-ca] (no subject)

On Jan 19, 2019, at 10:48 AM, john whelan wrote: > There was an earlier discussion on talk-ca about how to handle this project. There were MANY. Speaking for myself only, I urged a very cautious, go-slow approach, to edit the data into "improvement / harmony-with-OSM" as much as possible

Re: [Talk-ca] counting buildings - ( 2020 project ) - help please.

Whew, seems like overkill. Try "overpass turbo" (OT) for such queries. Here is a sample, and the query language (OverPass QL) is text-based and OSM-friendly, as it uses the tags you're searching for: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/BQ6 When it dialogs that the query will return a lot of data,

Re: [Talk-ca] counting buildings - ( 2020 project ) - help please.

On Sep 12, 2018, at 11:06 AM, john whelan wrote: > One of the requirements was to create something that did not require an > Internet connection OK, yet I had no way of knowing that from your post. Though, that is an "interesting" requirement for a crowdsourced, Internet-based map database.

Re: [Talk-ca] Fwd: BC2020i - update Sept 2018

Matthew, I personally thank you for sharing Alessandro's missive with talk-ca (an OSM-based list).However, Alessandro mentions "BC2020i" (and even "BC2020i-2"), initiatives which "used" (or proposed to "use") OSM as a data repository.  Not wishing to rehash history about this yet again, the

Re: [Talk-ca] Fwd: BC2020i - update Sept 2018

Thank you for those clarifications, John. I speak for myself, but I do feel confident that others are learning from what you say and that OSM and all involved can and shall do better. Honestly, I look forward to "better processes" which "make more open data available to OSM" (a worthy goal,

Re: [Talk-ca] Fwd: BC2020i - update Sept 2018

I (rather fully, and without Alessandro's accusatory "troll-like behaviours," wow) addressed Alessandro in an off-list email reply, though I quickly received an "out of the office until September 21" bounce-back. We shall see. One thing I must say here I found unfortunate in Alessandro's post

Re: [Talk-ca] Place Tagging

On Jan 24, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Danny McDonald wrote: > A place does not need to incorporated to be a place=town, city, village. > That is not how it works anywhere in OSM - there are many unincorporated > places with these tags, worldwide. The tagging in Ottawa is a good guide, > with e.g.

[Talk-ca] Building Import update

Thanks to some good old-fashioned OSM collaboration, both the https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Canada_Building_Import and https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020#NEWS.2C_January_2019 have been updated. (The latter points to the former). In short, it says there are now

Re: [Talk-ca] OSM Canada building import

I'm changing the Subject to delete "Stats Can" as this is an import into OSM, not a Stats Can import. True, they published the data, so "thanks for the data," but Stats Can isn't a part of this conversation, they merely published the data. I say it like this to emphasize that OSM is quite

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

On Jan 26, 2019, at 8:42 AM, Nate Wessel wrote: Four absolutely OUTSTANDING aspects of this project which can (seemingly must) be addressed before the Task Manager releases these (or improved/simplified) data. A salute to you, Nate, for these thoughtful words and their potential to very

Re: [Talk-ca] OSM Canada building import

On Jan 26, 2019, at 12:37 PM, john whelan wrote: A history of building data released by Stats Can and how these were entered into OSM via an Ottawa pilot project, with some success and some lessons learned. Good for OSM! > The other complicating factor here is a lot of people are very

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Ah, good dialog ensues. Municipality by municipality, in conjunction with BOTH the StatsCan and Bing data, the right things are getting noticed, the right things are getting human-realized at what the next steps are to do. It gets better. Yay. Stitch it together. One municipality at a

Re: [Talk-ca] Microsoft has released its building outlines for Canada

for letting us know here that the data are ODbL and therefore OSM-compatible. (One down, perhaps a bit more to go). SteveA > On Mar 2, 2019, at 2:40 PM, john whelan wrote: > > Why are you planning to import it? > > Cheerio John > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, 5:26 P

Re: [Talk-ca] Microsoft has released its building outlines for Canada

John, these aren't my fish to fry; this endeavor belongs primarily to Canadian OSM volunteers with optimistic attitudes who have the courage to envision a finish line of mighty and pride-inspiring results into existence. Being encouraging, my feeling is it IS possible to reach consensus across

Re: [Talk-ca] Microsoft has released its building outlines for Canada

A responsible complement to this would be a link to license information, a wiki page about these data, and perhaps an Import Plan should those data actually be asserted to be worthy of being responsibly imported into OSM. SteveA California > On Mar 2, 2019, at 2:17 PM, john whelan wrote: > >

Re: [Talk-ca] Microsoft has released its building outlines for Canada

On Mar 2, 2019, at 3:47 PM, John Whelan wrote: > Two years ago a group of Toronto mappers submitted the City of Toronto Open > Data license to the LWG to see if it was acceptable. I assume they meant to > import things such as building outlines. I also assumed as I think others > did that

Re: [Talk-ca] Microsoft has released its building outlines for Canada

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, 7:45 PM Tim Elrick, wrote: > Just my two cents here. There are plenty of others doing so, too (me included, though I'll happily deduct a cent for being non-Canadian, so before you know it, you've got a whole dollar. "Many hands make light work," though I agree that

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

On Jan 31, 2019, at 5:47 PM, john whelan wrote: > > I note that both Google and Bing have most buildings these days That's a strong assertion, any cite you might make? Or are you simply guessing? Also, so what? And, "most?" > and it has almost become a map user expectation. Do you have

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

On Feb 1, 2019, at 1:13 PM, john whelan wrote: > So how would you tackle it? > > Adding buildings with JOSM and the buildings_tool is possible, I think Julia > tried to whip up some interest with the 2020 project. Unfortunately > mapathons using iD and new mappers for some reason don't work

Re: [Talk-ca] Some feedback on import quality in Toronto

Mmm, careful with your language, John. The data "have a license which is compatible with OSM's ODbL" (is an accurate way to say it). I believe that took about eight years and was a difficult slog, a lot of hard work by many, lessons learned from Ottawa, a determination by OSM's LWG, but it is

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Pierre writes that he is "waiting for John's demonstration that the import data for Ottawa represents the outline of the buildings and is quality data." In reality, anybody (not necessarily John) can offer this sort of characterization. En réalité, n'importe qui (pas nécessairement John) peut

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

I dislike sounding simply "like a cheerleader," here however, I am deeply encouraged by what I see as substantial progress. This sort of discussion bodes very well for the future of the import. Keep up the good work! SteveA On Feb 3, 2019, at 3:26 PM, john whelan wrote: > I'm hearing we

Re: [Talk-ca] Some feedback on import quality in Toronto

It is an honor to participate in this good growth. May good (province-at-a-time building) data enter OSM at the hands of skilled OSM editors who have good instructions on "how" (the Import Plan can go that distance, please finish it) as their skills of good editing OSM data push the import

Re: [Talk-ca] Canada Building imports wiki page

t;don't do this in talk-ca" I am saying "there are often more-appropriate (vs. less-appropriate) places to have a discussion to achieve consensus." Sometimes, it makes sense to have an off-list email conversation in a one-on-one or one-on-many fashion. Thanks. SteveA California > On

Re: [Talk-ca] Place Tagging

On Jan 24, 2019, at 7:50 AM, Danny McDonald wrote: > My understanding of place tagging is that place=city, place=town, and > place=village are for distinct urban settlements, whether or not they are > separate municipalities. Correct, in that these tags can be placed upon a node, way or

Re: [Talk-ca] Open Data for Airdrie AB

John, that was an outstanding overview of and answer to today's quite workable process.  I can only dream that this be written up in whatever now guides this effort in OSM (BC2020 wiki, whatever).  Congratulations on developing what looks like it now does allow and will eventually better allow