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 nati
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 time.
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 achievi
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
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 thi
James 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 PM O
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:
>
>
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 ahe
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 keep
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 o
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
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 to
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 any
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 interest
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
positi
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 awar
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 step-b
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. Ric
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 relatio
#x27;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
Californi
d64) 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.
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 b
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
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 BEFOR
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
(ov
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
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 municipaliti
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:"
http://over
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 a
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
m
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 t
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 tout
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 ne
On Nov 1, 2018, at 1:53 PM, John Whelan wrote:
> Are you confusing the availability of Open Data with an import?
No, I am not.
> Most imports need plans
No, ALL imports need plans.
> but just because Open Data is available does not mean the license is
> compatible nor that it will be imported
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 i
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
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
hundre
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
elementary/m
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,
i
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 w
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 initiat
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.
>
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, clic
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 governme
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
> 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 k
Canada et le monde entier 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
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".
Jusqu'
ase any American tourists get confused?
> >
> > Unfortunately the locals will 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
tunately the locals will 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
very 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
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
> operator:short_na
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 Nort
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 riders association) regardi
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 M
Tim, I offer you relatively simple steps which work on macOS High Sierra. You
might email me off list (if you get stuck), or I'll be brief here.
Install Java Runtime Environment or JDK. Current is Version 8 Update 161.
This is figure-out-able: not hard, though it has steps and takes reasonab
john whelan writes:
> Stats was after things like the number of levels, house number, street
> name, is the building commerical, residential, apartment. There are some
> 70 or 80 different tags used for buildings in taginfo. At the bit of
> Brandon I looked at there were only two values used. I
As has been well-documented in both this forum (talk-ca) and our wiki(s),
please note that importing building footprints in Canada has been fraught with
peril, especially regarding licensing issues. It must (again) be underscored
that asking OSM's LWG about each and every license case for each
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 admin
OSM has much in common with language and, it can be said, maps (heh, in a
mathematical sense) fairly directly onto language: plastic tagging syntax,
rules which sometimes get broken, vivid semiotics which change with what we
wish the map to visually "do" for us and usage which newly defines dif
> 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." THEN
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
I continue to assert that our (OSM's) name=* wiki states these abbreviations
should be fully expanded and that official_name=* might hold the abbreviation.
In short, "them's the rules" in OSM: part of why I'm pounding so hard on this
is that I might get some recognition that OSM does have rule
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 thumbs-up/thumbs-d
> The OSM wiki states:
Ah, awesome. I see recycling of cutting room floor scraps here; love it.
Later,
SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
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 official place name of the feature?
>
> T
On Feb 16, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> With "street" in a street name, it's clear to most everyone that Pine St is
> an abbreviation and Pine Street is the correct unabbreviated Canadian English
> version. It is not clear to me that "Saint Catharines" is the correct
> unabbrevi
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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tal
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
___
Talk-
0 PM, James wrote:
>
> http://saultstemarie.ca/
>
> thats how its written. even on signs to there
>
> On Feb 16, 2018 3:47 PM, "OSM Volunteer stevea"
> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> > St. Catharines, St. Thomas, Sault St
On Feb 16, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> St. Catharines, St. Thomas, Sault Ste. Marie
I dislike sounding nit-picky, this really is meant as constructive criticism,
but let's expand these names so there are no abbreviations. Our wiki
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Names says "If the name
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 use "City of
> ", "Town
I smell a harmonization with admin_level...not that there's anything wrong with
that.
SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> 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 quick
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. Tha
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
Hey, a discussion for multi-contact and phone tag semantics-meets-syntax.
Excellent!
Note how our tag:phone wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:phone hews pretty
strongly to ITU-T E.164. That is a goal to shoot for, as what it calls "user
agents" is what I referred to as "a phone number parser
On Feb 5, 2018, at 12:36 PM, john whelan wrote:
> > Any thoughts on geovisual analytic tools like Crowd Lens, OSMatrix or
> > Epic-osm for identifying other contributors who may be interested in
> > joining the BC2020i crowd?
>
> Once we define a process to add information simply then we can s
On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:37 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> Just an update on this activity.
Again, nice work!
> Here are the top 20 tags as of ~4pm ET Sunday:
>
> 10669 phone"+#-###-###-
>4392 phone"+# ###-###-
>4206 phone"###-###-
>2970 phone"+# ### ###
>2540 phone"
On Feb 4, 2018, at 1:04 PM, Harald Kliems wrote:
> I agree with your interpretation of the meaning of the lcn tag. I suspect
> this may be a case of mapping for the renderer, where people want bike lanes
> or other infrastructure to visibly show up on OpenCycleMap or elsewhere.
Right, thanks, H
On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Mike Boos wrote:
> I've noticed some users have begun tagging some roads in a number of Canadian
> cities with lcn=yes tags, which are intended for marking local cycling
> routes. My understanding of the lcn tag was that it was intended for marking
> designated route
On Feb 2, 2018, at 6:08 PM, john whelan wrote:
> > John: "tenets, sub-culture, planning, project management, scope, status,
> > video clips, explaining process and various audiences" are not buzzwords.
> > They are well-established, hundreds of years old (well, not video clips)
> > and most
You are welcome, Jonathan.
SteveA
> On Feb 2, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Jonathan Brown wrote:
>
> Bingo, that’s exactly what we want to pilot in Northumberland, Niagara,
> Durham regions and possibly the City of Toronto. I’m going to chat with
> Sterling Quinn on Monday and will ask him for his flight
On Feb 2, 2018, at 5:03 PM, john whelan wrote:
> >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/upd
Jonathan: (I spell your name correctly this time, sorry about that):
> In Ontario, school boards are licensed to use ArcGIS. This is what many
> municipal and regional GIS staff us. For the non-GIS experts it is not
> user-friendly. I saw this first hand with an outdoor education teacher I was
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 short
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 model.
> It will be
> • 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 w
On Jan 29, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Stewart C. Russell 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 of
>> entering data
Um, "dyed-in-the-wool."
Steve
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
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
> can be poor.
I find i
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 wrote:
>
> On 2018-01-28 09:16 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>> Halifax also looks like it grants explicit p
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 th
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
> On 2018-01-28 07:3
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 provided)
___
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 and
consensus. This
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 wikis.
OK, now do
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 be
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 history lesson. I've been
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 would be a very
> small
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
