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

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

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 permission.
> 
> still needs an approved import procedure and approaching LWG for
> approval - so it's not good to go by any means
> 
> ___
> 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

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-01-28 04:21 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> 
> Here is the licence (Federal): 
> http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada

Here are some of the problems with that licence, in as many other
people's word's as possible:

* Like the OGL-UK, it doesn't deal with third-party rights. This is a
problem:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2016-September/008541.html

* Unlike the OGL-UK, the TB licence doesn't have a compatibility clause.
The UK licence includes this clause:

> “These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution
> License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of
> which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the
> Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences,
> you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply
> with the other licence. The OGLv3.0 is Open Definition compliant.”

The Canadian licence gives no such assurance.

* Unlike the OGL-UK, the licence doesn't cover the whole public sector.
This from personal communication from Simon Poole of the OSM
Foundation's legal team from March 2017:

>> [The Ontario and Toronto licences] illustrate why we didn't want
>> to make a blanket statement wrt OGL licence variants in CA and why
>> in general the situation is a bit of a mess.

It's also worth playing with CLIPOL - http://clipol.org/ - to see how
badly myriad open data licences work together.

___
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 2018-01-28 09:16 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> Halifax also looks like it grants explicit permission.

still needs an approved import procedure and approaching LWG for
approval - so it's not good to go by any means

___
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 2018-01-28 05:19 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> 
> PLEASE, I ask others to double- or triple- or multiple-check me here!  Do 
> these (local licenses in Canada) reflect the current state of reality?  We 
> (here in talk-ca) believe they do, we (OSM) welcome any updates directly to 
> the Contributors wiki.  Thank you.

vancouver should be green

Cities/provinces that are okay to use should have documentation about
permission and process in the wiki. The Canvec data was an explicit
grant predating the Big OSM Licence Change, and it has no formal import
page because it's so old. Canvec data is now under OGL-CA 2.0, so it's
good, and there are still a couple of people working on the import.

 Stewart

___
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]

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 that, please 
revert.  If I'm correct and you know it or also feel this is true (I've done 
similar things in the USA with explicit permission, as from our AASHTO on 
national routes) then please remove "ARE WE SURE?" on the Contributors page.  
Thank you.

Up to four municipalities, now.  Thanks to great teamwork for a productive 
weekend, everybody.  See you around.

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

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

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)


___
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

[Matthew Darwin]

Great, seems like we have a list of 3 ok ones:

Ottawa (approved license)

Gatineau + Montreal (explicit approval provided)



@James, do we have documentation as to where approval was given? Would 
be good to have this info on the wiki.



Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2018-01-28 05:59 PM, James wrote:

LWG blog post about CC-BY

https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

as long as you have explicit permission to add data from city. It 
become compatible.
I used "may" as in "should remain on the list because explicit 
permission was already obtained."


On Jan 28, 2018 5:53 PM, "OSM Volunteer stevea" 
> wrote:


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 can be challenging, lengthy,
repeat-oriented / loquacious and seem like it runs in circles! 
It gets better.

James, I hereby ask you to change status from red to green once
you know.  Perhaps also undo the strikeout type (delete the
 brackets in the markup language) in Contributors for those
two cities, too (updating the one or two lines of text it takes
to do that).  That goes for anybody posting here and/or reading
this.

To all, wiki what you know, please!  Though, sometimes,
conversations here, or in email, or "in the map" or... are more
appropriate.

I'm saying "wiki when wiki is right."

SteveA




___
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

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

[James]

LWG blog post about CC-BY

https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

as long as you have explicit permission to add data from city. It become
compatible.
I used "may" as in "should remain on the list because explicit permission
was already obtained."

On Jan 28, 2018 5:53 PM, "OSM Volunteer stevea" 
wrote:

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 can be challenging, lengthy, repeat-oriented /
loquacious and seem like it runs in circles!  It gets better.

James, I hereby ask you to change status from red to green once you know.
Perhaps also undo the strikeout type (delete the  brackets in the
markup language) in Contributors for those two cities, too (updating the
one or two lines of text it takes to do that).  That goes for anybody
posting here and/or reading this.

To all, wiki what you know, please!  Though, sometimes, conversations here,
or in email, or "in the map" or... are more appropriate.

I'm saying "wiki when wiki is right."

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

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

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 can be challenging, lengthy, repeat-oriented / loquacious and 
seem like it runs in circles!  It gets better.

James, I hereby ask you to change status from red to green once you know.  
Perhaps also undo the strikeout type (delete the  brackets in the markup 
language) in Contributors for those two cities, too (updating the one or two 
lines of text it takes to do that).  That goes for anybody posting here and/or 
reading this.

To all, wiki what you know, please!  Though, sometimes, conversations here, or 
in email, or "in the map" or... are more appropriate.

I'm saying "wiki when wiki is right."

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

[James]

CC Attribution is compatible with explicit permission, so Gatineau and
Montreal may remain on the list.

On Jan 28, 2018 5:20 PM, "OSM Volunteer stevea" 
wrote:

> 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 done.
>
> In Contributors, following the existing example of Toronto, I have used
> strikeout type.  To be clear, I ONLY did this for eight of the ten
> "Canadian Municipalities" listed there, leaving Ottawa in plain type
> indicating "Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence
> – City of Ottawa." and its embedded link.  (I left Yellowknife yellow, it
> is 100% done, that may or may not be the correct color, it might be red).
> I did NOT change Canadian Provinces (of which British Columbia is the only
> one listed) nor Natural Resources Canada.  Whew.
>
> PLEASE, I ask others to double- or triple- or multiple-check me here!  Do
> these (local licenses in Canada) reflect the current state of reality?  We
> (here in talk-ca) believe they do, we (OSM) welcome any updates directly to
> the Contributors wiki.  Thank you.
>
> In the BC2020 OD wiki, they are all red except for Ottawa, which remains
> green and Yellowknife which remains yellow as it is 100% done, though it
> may be conflation for me to be thinking that way and perhaps it goes red,
> meaning, license not approved.  Hm, Yellowknife to red but left as done,
> both true apparently.  Uh
>
> This does lead to (at least me asking) "hm, how did 80% done get into
> Edmonton and Yellowknife 100%, I'll leave that alone for now.  (I'm
> guessing "via Bing or other visual layer, and JOSM and maybe a plug-in and
> a toolchain and so on...).  Two separate issues:  local licenses and "how
> much is done anyway."  I'm putting pieces together, disassembling
> stovepipes, as it were.  A wider (than Canada) OSM community does better
> understand some status via our wiki.
>
> It is likely that we simply need a total run-through of what is
> everybody's understanding up and down our wiki, toolchains, processes,
> lines of communication, etc.  A sort of thing that is done on a talk page
> and via wikis.  It appears to be a national conversation.
>
> Steady ahead.
>
> SteveA
> ___
> 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

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

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

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 done.

In Contributors, following the existing example of Toronto, I have used 
strikeout type.  To be clear, I ONLY did this for eight of the ten "Canadian 
Municipalities" listed there, leaving Ottawa in plain type indicating "Contains 
information licensed under the Open Government Licence – City of Ottawa." and 
its embedded link.  (I left Yellowknife yellow, it is 100% done, that may or 
may not be the correct color, it might be red).  I did NOT change Canadian 
Provinces (of which British Columbia is the only one listed) nor Natural 
Resources Canada.  Whew.

PLEASE, I ask others to double- or triple- or multiple-check me here!  Do these 
(local licenses in Canada) reflect the current state of reality?  We (here in 
talk-ca) believe they do, we (OSM) welcome any updates directly to the 
Contributors wiki.  Thank you.

In the BC2020 OD wiki, they are all red except for Ottawa, which remains green 
and Yellowknife which remains yellow as it is 100% done, though it may be 
conflation for me to be thinking that way and perhaps it goes red, meaning, 
license not approved.  Hm, Yellowknife to red but left as done, both true 
apparently.  Uh

This does lead to (at least me asking) "hm, how did 80% done get into Edmonton 
and Yellowknife 100%, I'll leave that alone for now.  (I'm guessing "via Bing 
or other visual layer, and JOSM and maybe a plug-in and a toolchain and so 
on...).  Two separate issues:  local licenses and "how much is done anyway."  
I'm putting pieces together, disassembling stovepipes, as it were.  A wider 
(than Canada) OSM community does better understand some status via our wiki.

It is likely that we simply need a total run-through of what is everybody's 
understanding up and down our wiki, toolchains, processes, lines of 
communication, etc.  A sort of thing that is done on a talk page and via wikis. 
 It appears to be a national conversation.

Steady ahead.

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

[john whelan]

The legal working group offers opinions nothing else.  If the only change
to the licence is the city name then it should be fine to use.  The problem
for the cities is it takes about a year or two to get these things approved
and if you can't say to the politicians it will be accepted then its time
and money spent for an uncertain result.

I understand there is a fairly involved import process as well that needs a
benediction that looks at the licensing these days.

TB did the rounds before coming up with their license by the way.

Data released through the TB open data portal is correctly licensed. The
CANVEC approval was based on a misunderstanding which has since been
cleared up.  It is currently released through the TB Open Data portal and
thus covered under the 2.0 license.

Cheerio John

On 28 January 2018 at 16:31, Matthew Darwin <matt...@mdarwin.ca> wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
> Please do raise the licensing issue it is a major blocking point to
> have imports proceed.  We cannot have a variant of the same license for
> each city, just changing the city name because the OSM license working
> group thinks these are thus all different and then needing another round of
> review.   We need one (or very small number of) licenses every
> municipality/region/province can use.
>
> One way to solve this is to have every municipality/region/province
> contribute to one master data set and then make that dataset available to
> OSM.  Eg add all the buildings into CanVec.  CanVec is already approved. :-)
>
>
> Matthew Darwinmatthew@mdarwin.cahttp://www.mdarwin.ca
>
> On 2018-01-28 02:42 PM, Jonathan Brown wrote:
>
> Okay, I know the Open Data folks and Open Government folks in Ontario.
> It’s their job to connect to and support the data stewards within
> government who are releasing data through the Open Data Portal. The federal
> open government folks are holding a meeting in Toronto this Monday where
> the provincial and city folks are likely to be in attendance. I can raise
> this licensing issue and how this is a barrier to crowdsourcing and citizen
> science, something that they are keen on embracing. It would be good to
> show them a working example. Has the BC2020i OSM data been integrated into
> the Ottawa Open Data Portal?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From: *john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:29 PM
> *To: *Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> If the city has an Open Data file of the building outlines then it must be
> available under a licence that OpenStreetMap can accept.  Part of the
> problem is you can use OpenStreetMap for anything.
>
> The Canadian Federal Government noticed there were problems with their
> Open Data licence for OpenStreetMap amongst others they came up with
> version 2.0.  Ottawa was the first municipality to adopt the new license
> and it took about five years to get it sorted out from start to finish.
>
> I was involved in the original import and was under the impression that
> since we were importing CANVEC data and that was available under the 2.0
> license that the municipal equivalent license was acceptable. Some Stats
> Canada addresses had been imported from the TB open data portal in Toronto
> and they were under the same impression.
>
> It became apparent that the CANVEC imports were not done under the 2.0
> license in OSM's eyes.
>
> The TB 2.0 and the Ottawa Open Data license was referred to the LWG for
> their opinion.  Their opinion was they were acceptable.  However they
> wished to view any other Open Data licenses in Canada before giving their
> benediction.
>
> Some Open Data licenses say and if we don't like what you are doing you
> must remove our data.  This is an example on something that OSM would find
> unacceptable.
>
> Once the outlines are in place then other tags can be added.
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 28 January 2018 at 13:50, Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com> 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 start, of course. Also, can someone explain to me the
> licensing issue? How do datasets released under the open government license
> not meet the legal requirements of the OSM license?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>

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

[James]

*Denis and I. No usb was shared, only a datafile for download.

On Jan 28, 2018 3:18 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Ottawa building outlines were identified as a possibility by Tracey at
a meeting between Stats Can City of Ottawa and a few people from OSM plus a
few others by phone who had done something similar.

Most of the enriching of OSM from Ottawa's Open Data came through their
portal such as the GTFS file.  Martin and James have done most of the work
integrating what they could find.

Once we had the license lined up then I understand the building outline
file was supplied separately to the Open Data portal but with the same
licence.  I think James would know if it came on a USB stick or not.

The Stats Can building project has had a lot of interest from
municipalities.  I think Kingston was very keen.  Its value is the mixture
of Open Data and the enrichment that comes from the OSM side to give the
number of levels etc.

TB are supposed to have an Open data kit for municipalities real soon now
and that is supposed to include information about the TB 2.0 Open Data
Licence that Ottawa is using.

Cheerio John

On 28 January 2018 at 14:42, Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, I know the Open Data folks and Open Government folks in Ontario.
> It’s their job to connect to and support the data stewards within
> government who are releasing data through the Open Data Portal. The federal
> open government folks are holding a meeting in Toronto this Monday where
> the provincial and city folks are likely to be in attendance. I can raise
> this licensing issue and how this is a barrier to crowdsourcing and citizen
> science, something that they are keen on embracing. It would be good to
> show them a working example. Has the BC2020i OSM data been integrated into
> the Ottawa Open Data Portal?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From: *john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:29 PM
> *To: *Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> If the city has an Open Data file of the building outlines then it must be
> available under a licence that OpenStreetMap can accept.  Part of the
> problem is you can use OpenStreetMap for anything.
>
> The Canadian Federal Government noticed there were problems with their
> Open Data licence for OpenStreetMap amongst others they came up with
> version 2.0.  Ottawa was the first municipality to adopt the new license
> and it took about five years to get it sorted out from start to finish.
>
> I was involved in the original import and was under the impression that
> since we were importing CANVEC data and that was available under the 2.0
> license that the municipal equivalent license was acceptable. Some Stats
> Canada addresses had been imported from the TB open data portal in Toronto
> and they were under the same impression.
>
> It became apparent that the CANVEC imports were not done under the 2.0
> license in OSM's eyes.
>
> The TB 2.0 and the Ottawa Open Data license was referred to the LWG for
> their opinion.  Their opinion was they were acceptable.  However they
> wished to view any other Open Data licenses in Canada before giving their
> benediction.
>
> Some Open Data licenses say and if we don't like what you are doing you
> must remove our data.  This is an example on something that OSM would find
> unacceptable.
>
> Once the outlines are in place then other tags can be added.
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 28 January 2018 at 13:50, Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com> 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 start, of course. Also, can someone explain to me the
> licensing issue? How do datasets released under the open government license
> not meet the legal requirements of the OSM license?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


___
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

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

[john whelan]

The low hanging fruit are the GTFS files that contain the bus stop
locations.  With GPS driven stop announcements for the visually impaired
most in Ontario will be accurate in the GTFS file.

Make that open data under the correct license and it can be imported.  It's
cheap to do and supports transit.

The other aspect is multilanguage support.  In Ottawa in OSMand set the
language display to French and the street names come up as rue Sparks
rather than Sparks Street.  This can be attractive to some locations.

Cheerio John

On 28 Jan 2018 3:50 pm, "Jonathan Brown" <jonab...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks. It’s good to here that the TB (Treasury Board?) are starting to
> provide support in that way of a kit for municipalities. It would be good
> to work with the municipal leaders in building capacity with those
> municipalities with limited capacity and resources to support open data
> initiatives (see Open Cities Index Results for 2017
> https://publicsectordigest.com/open-cities-index-results-2017 published
> by the PSD. Highlights from the report:
>
>- *45 percent* of municipalities surveyed have an open data committee
>in place
>- Of those respondents with an open data committee, very few are
>having regular meetings
>- The vast majority of respondents are either considering an open data
>policy (*33 percent*), are in the process of implementing one (*7
>percent*), or already have an established policy (*45 percent*)
>- While few municipal respondents have an open data strategic plan
>currently in place, more than half are considering a plan or are currently
>implementing one
>- *69 percent* of surveyed municipalities report having internal
>educational resources in place for their open data program, while *51
>percent* report having external resources available for the community
>
>
>
> I live in Cobourg in Northumberland County south of Peterborough. We do
> not have an Open Data initiative at either the municipal or regional level.
> Cobourg received a $450K grant for an incubation hub called Venture 13, and
> Peterborough is in the process of educating internal staff on their new
> open data policy. We are hoping to learn from the leaders in OSM and Open
> Data through hands-on activities like the BC2020i.
>
>
>
> I have been volunteering my time with the Niagara Region folks for the
> past two years to try to figure out a way to get the open data into the
> K-12 education sector. We too have the same need as Clifford and Keith in
> Manitoba who are trying to figure out how to connect local high school and
> undergraduate students to a local problem-solving task using the BC202i
> framework.
>
>
>
> Marina, It would be help if you could connect with the federal TB team so
> that they understand what should go into a kit for municipalities and their
> community partners that want to participate in a BC2020i OSM project. My
> contact over there is Alannah Hilt (see bio at go-opendata.ca/speaker/
> alannah-hilt/). Connie, since Niagara Region in number 9 on the list of
> the top 20 Open Data leaders, is there anything you think we need to add to
> support the mapathon event in the Niagara Region?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From: *john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 3:17 PM
> *To: *Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
>
>
>
> The Ottawa building outlines were identified as a possibility by Tracey at
> a meeting between Stats Can City of Ottawa and a few people from OSM plus a
> few others by phone who had done something similar.
>
>
>
> Most of the enriching of OSM from Ottawa's Open Data came through their
> portal such as the GTFS file.  Martin and James have done most of the work
> integrating what they could find.
>
>
>
> Once we had the license lined up then I understand the building outline
> file was supplied separately to the Open Data portal but with the same
> licence.  I think James would know if it came on a USB stick or not.
>
>
>
> The Stats Can building project has had a lot of interest from
> municipalities.  I think Kingston was very keen.  Its value is the mixture
> of Open Data and the enrichment that comes from the OSM side to give the
> number of levels etc.
>
>
>
> TB are supposed to have an Open data kit for municipalities real soon now
> and that is supposed to include information about the TB 2.0 Open Data
> Licence that Ottawa is using.
>
>
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 28 January 2018 at 14:42, Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, I know the Open

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

[Jonathan Brown]

Thanks. It’s good to here that the TB (Treasury Board?) are starting to provide 
support in that way of a kit for municipalities. It would be good to work with 
the municipal leaders in building capacity with those municipalities with 
limited capacity and resources to support open data initiatives (see Open 
Cities Index Results for 2017 
https://publicsectordigest.com/open-cities-index-results-2017 published by the 
PSD. Highlights from the report:
• 45 percent of municipalities surveyed have an open data committee in place
• Of those respondents with an open data committee, very few are having regular 
meetings
• The vast majority of respondents are either considering an open data policy 
(33 percent), are in the process of implementing one (7 percent), or already 
have an established policy (45 percent)
• While few municipal respondents have an open data strategic plan currently in 
place, more than half are considering a plan or are currently implementing one
• 69 percent of surveyed municipalities report having internal educational 
resources in place for their open data program, while 51 percent report having 
external resources available for the community

I live in Cobourg in Northumberland County south of Peterborough. We do not 
have an Open Data initiative at either the municipal or regional level. Cobourg 
received a $450K grant for an incubation hub called Venture 13, and 
Peterborough is in the process of educating internal staff on their new open 
data policy. We are hoping to learn from the leaders in OSM and Open Data 
through hands-on activities like the BC2020i.  

I have been volunteering my time with the Niagara Region folks for the past two 
years to try to figure out a way to get the open data into the K-12 education 
sector. We too have the same need as Clifford and Keith in Manitoba who are 
trying to figure out how to connect local high school and undergraduate 
students to a local problem-solving task using the BC202i framework.

Marina, It would be help if you could connect with the federal TB team so that 
they understand what should go into a kit for municipalities and their 
community partners that want to participate in a BC2020i OSM project. My 
contact over there is Alannah Hilt (see bio at 
go-opendata.ca/speaker/alannah-hilt/). Connie, since Niagara Region in number 9 
on the list of the top 20 Open Data leaders, is there anything you think we 
need to add to support the mapathon event in the Niagara Region? 

Jonathan 

From: john whelan
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 3:17 PM
To: Jonathan Brown
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

The Ottawa building outlines were identified as a possibility by Tracey at a 
meeting between Stats Can City of Ottawa and a few people from OSM plus a few 
others by phone who had done something similar.

Most of the enriching of OSM from Ottawa's Open Data came through their portal 
such as the GTFS file.  Martin and James have done most of the work integrating 
what they could find.

Once we had the license lined up then I understand the building outline file 
was supplied separately to the Open Data portal but with the same licence.  I 
think James would know if it came on a USB stick or not. 

The Stats Can building project has had a lot of interest from municipalities.  
I think Kingston was very keen.  Its value is the mixture of Open Data and the 
enrichment that comes from the OSM side to give the number of levels etc.

TB are supposed to have an Open data kit for municipalities real soon now and 
that is supposed to include information about the TB 2.0 Open Data Licence that 
Ottawa is using.

Cheerio John

On 28 January 2018 at 14:42, Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, I know the Open Data folks and Open Government folks in Ontario. It’s 
their job to connect to and support the data stewards within government who are 
releasing data through the Open Data Portal. The federal open government folks 
are holding a meeting in Toronto this Monday where the provincial and city 
folks are likely to be in attendance. I can raise this licensing issue and how 
this is a barrier to crowdsourcing and citizen science, something that they are 
keen on embracing. It would be good to show them a working example. Has the 
BC2020i OSM data been integrated into the Ottawa Open Data Portal?  
 
Jonathan 
 
From: john whelan
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:29 PM
To: Jonathan Brown
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
 
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.
If the city has an Open Data file of the building outlines then it must be 
available under a licence that OpenStreetMap can accept.  Part of the problem 
is you can use OpenStreetMap for anything.
The Canadian Federal Gove

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

[john whelan]

The Ottawa building outlines were identified as a possibility by Tracey at
a meeting between Stats Can City of Ottawa and a few people from OSM plus a
few others by phone who had done something similar.

Most of the enriching of OSM from Ottawa's Open Data came through their
portal such as the GTFS file.  Martin and James have done most of the work
integrating what they could find.

Once we had the license lined up then I understand the building outline
file was supplied separately to the Open Data portal but with the same
licence.  I think James would know if it came on a USB stick or not.

The Stats Can building project has had a lot of interest from
municipalities.  I think Kingston was very keen.  Its value is the mixture
of Open Data and the enrichment that comes from the OSM side to give the
number of levels etc.

TB are supposed to have an Open data kit for municipalities real soon now
and that is supposed to include information about the TB 2.0 Open Data
Licence that Ottawa is using.

Cheerio John

On 28 January 2018 at 14:42, Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, I know the Open Data folks and Open Government folks in Ontario.
> It’s their job to connect to and support the data stewards within
> government who are releasing data through the Open Data Portal. The federal
> open government folks are holding a meeting in Toronto this Monday where
> the provincial and city folks are likely to be in attendance. I can raise
> this licensing issue and how this is a barrier to crowdsourcing and citizen
> science, something that they are keen on embracing. It would be good to
> show them a working example. Has the BC2020i OSM data been integrated into
> the Ottawa Open Data Portal?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From: *john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:29 PM
> *To: *Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> If the city has an Open Data file of the building outlines then it must be
> available under a licence that OpenStreetMap can accept.  Part of the
> problem is you can use OpenStreetMap for anything.
>
> The Canadian Federal Government noticed there were problems with their
> Open Data licence for OpenStreetMap amongst others they came up with
> version 2.0.  Ottawa was the first municipality to adopt the new license
> and it took about five years to get it sorted out from start to finish.
>
> I was involved in the original import and was under the impression that
> since we were importing CANVEC data and that was available under the 2.0
> license that the municipal equivalent license was acceptable. Some Stats
> Canada addresses had been imported from the TB open data portal in Toronto
> and they were under the same impression.
>
> It became apparent that the CANVEC imports were not done under the 2.0
> license in OSM's eyes.
>
> The TB 2.0 and the Ottawa Open Data license was referred to the LWG for
> their opinion.  Their opinion was they were acceptable.  However they
> wished to view any other Open Data licenses in Canada before giving their
> benediction.
>
> Some Open Data licenses say and if we don't like what you are doing you
> must remove our data.  This is an example on something that OSM would find
> unacceptable.
>
> Once the outlines are in place then other tags can be added.
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 28 January 2018 at 13:50, Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com> 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 start, of course. Also, can someone explain to me the
> licensing issue? How do datasets released under the open government license
> not meet the legal requirements of the OSM license?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
___
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 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 looking at the 
history of our Contributor page to see who edited these Canadian cities "into 
compliance" and it is a mixed bag of "me, too" additions.  Try:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Contributors==500=history

and do a web page text search for "Canad" and you'll get a sense of this.

However, while history lessons can shed light, the task at hand is to update 
status for today, now, amongst a wide national (and international, 
OSM-worldwide) audience.  So, let's continue to do that and pursue the truth of 
Canadian OD licensing status.  Yes, it's clear that mapping from Bing (please 
use JOSM + building_tool plugin — and where is the wiki to document efforts on 
how OSM volunteers do THAT?) is a slightly different set of tasks than that 
outlined in BC2020, as IT talks about bulk importing a lot, and doesn't seem to 
talk about Bing and JOSM + building_tool plugin efforts.

I'll say it again:  the Contributors wiki (and concomitantly, the BC2020 
OD_tables wiki) need to be updated to "current reality," whatever that is.  I 
don't know what that is, maybe nobody does.  If nobody does, every city except 
for Ottawa rightfully should be removed to end the confusion, updating both 
wikis.

Finally, the BC2020 wiki itself (not OD_tables) needs to be refreshed by 
somebody other than me to reflect what is REALLY going on in this project 
nationwide in Canada, right now.  Please!

We seem to be getting somewhere, even if it is determining that "efforts remain 
unconfused and confused on a national level."  I'll take that as minor progress 
— because it can be cleaned up and remedied!

Thank you to all for measured, patient and polite conversations both here in 
talk-ca and in our wikis,
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

[Jonathan Brown]

Okay, I know the Open Data folks and Open Government folks in Ontario. It’s 
their job to connect to and support the data stewards within government who are 
releasing data through the Open Data Portal. The federal open government folks 
are holding a meeting in Toronto this Monday where the provincial and city 
folks are likely to be in attendance. I can raise this licensing issue and how 
this is a barrier to crowdsourcing and citizen science, something that they are 
keen on embracing. It would be good to show them a working example. Has the 
BC2020i OSM data been integrated into the Ottawa Open Data Portal?  

Jonathan 

From: john whelan
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:29 PM
To: Jonathan Brown
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status

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.
If the city has an Open Data file of the building outlines then it must be 
available under a licence that OpenStreetMap can accept.  Part of the problem 
is you can use OpenStreetMap for anything.
The Canadian Federal Government noticed there were problems with their Open 
Data licence for OpenStreetMap amongst others they came up with version 2.0.  
Ottawa was the first municipality to adopt the new license and it took about 
five years to get it sorted out from start to finish.
I was involved in the original import and was under the impression that since 
we were importing CANVEC data and that was available under the 2.0 license that 
the municipal equivalent license was acceptable. Some Stats Canada addresses 
had been imported from the TB open data portal in Toronto and they were under 
the same impression.
It became apparent that the CANVEC imports were not done under the 2.0 license 
in OSM's eyes.
The TB 2.0 and the Ottawa Open Data license was referred to the LWG for their 
opinion.  Their opinion was they were acceptable.  However they wished to view 
any other Open Data licenses in Canada before giving their benediction.  
Some Open Data licenses say and if we don't like what you are doing you must 
remove our data.  This is an example on something that OSM would find 
unacceptable.
Once the outlines are in place then other tags can be added.
Cheerio John

On 28 January 2018 at 13:50, Jonathan Brown <jonab...@gmail.com> 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 
start, of course. Also, can someone explain to me the licensing issue? How do 
datasets released under the open government license not meet the legal 
requirements of the OSM license? 
 
Jonathan 
 
 




___
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]

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.

If the city has an Open Data file of the building outlines then it must be
available under a licence that OpenStreetMap can accept.  Part of the
problem is you can use OpenStreetMap for anything.

The Canadian Federal Government noticed there were problems with their Open
Data licence for OpenStreetMap amongst others they came up with version
2.0.  Ottawa was the first municipality to adopt the new license and it
took about five years to get it sorted out from start to finish.

I was involved in the original import and was under the impression that
since we were importing CANVEC data and that was available under the 2.0
license that the municipal equivalent license was acceptable. Some Stats
Canada addresses had been imported from the TB open data portal in Toronto
and they were under the same impression.

It became apparent that the CANVEC imports were not done under the 2.0
license in OSM's eyes.

The TB 2.0 and the Ottawa Open Data license was referred to the LWG for
their opinion.  Their opinion was they were acceptable.  However they
wished to view any other Open Data licenses in Canada before giving their
benediction.

Some Open Data licenses say and if we don't like what you are doing you
must remove our data.  This is an example on something that OSM would find
unacceptable.

Once the outlines are in place then other tags can be added.

Cheerio John

On 28 January 2018 at 13:50, 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 start, of course. Also, can someone explain to me the
> licensing issue? How do datasets released under the open government license
> not meet the legal requirements of the OSM license?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
___
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

[James]

not only that but sometimes they add things that make it more or less
compatible(previously bc and their unique privacy or something else)

On Jan 28, 2018 2:14 PM, "OSM Volunteer stevea" 
wrote:

> 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 start, of course. Also, can someone explain to me the
> licensing issue? How do datasets released under the open government license
> not meet the legal requirements of the OSM license?
>
> Then, On Jan 28, 2018, at 10:57 AM, James  wrote:
> > license is federal, cities must modify it to apply to municipal, thus
> creating new license
>
> SO, please ladies and gentleman, "figure out" what your licensing status
> is, and document it.  First in https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/
> Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities where it is now said these entries
> are incorrect (except for Ottawa).  Second in https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/
> WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020/building_OD_tables, which now
> refers back to that page in all the "green" cells.
>
> This is what OSM (partly) is:  documenting in a wiki (for all to see and
> share in the knowledge of) the status of licensing, a link to an Import
> Plan, helpful steps to take when you get stuck and don't know what to do, a
> place to propose streamlined or improved methodology, a way to capture the
> status of a project (whether with or without Task Manager links) perhaps
> using red/yellow/green color-coded cells, or cells that have "80% done" in
> them, as appropriate, et cetera.
>
> The "scope of the work involved in updating the BC2020 OD tables" is not
> hard, it is this:
>
> 1)  View OD_tables wiki (the second link above)
> 2)  Click the Log In link (upper right) and enter your OSM wiki
> credentials (different than your OSM credentials)
> 3)  Click the Edit Source link (ditto), I don't recommend the
> usually-more-friendly-user-interface Edit link, as you are editing TABLES
> here, and (in my opinion) our wiki's raw (lightweight, relatively easy)
> markup language is the only sane choice here to edit table data entries
> 4)  Edit the table data for each cell which is now green (yes), but which
> should be red (no) or perhaps something in the middle, yellow (partial).
> There are 11 colored cells now, 7 are green, 4 are yellow.  It seems 1
> should be green (Ottawa) and therefore left alone, but the other ten should
> be changed to red or yellow.  So, GO!
>
> OTHERS reading this list (not me!) must properly decide what these
> colors/statuses are, as I'm merely some guy in the USA who wants to see the
> project go forward, but the licenses, and importantly, their statuses as
> communicated to the rest of OSM via the Contributors page and the
> WikiProject BC2020 OD tables page are now confused/outdated/wrong and so
> these must be updated so they are correct for 2018, now and going forward.
>
> > I offer to "change from green to red" wiki table status for all cities
> (except Ottawa), although I'd also like to see Contributors be updated
> (with only Ottawa) as I suggest.  Teamwork, anybody?  Simply to keep our
> project-wide communication current?  It's neither difficult nor
> time-consuming and shares present status with "the rest of us."
>
> And my offer still stands, I just have no clue what is going on with these
> licenses.  Does anybody here?  Please, let's not kick this into "well, it's
> sorta lost in the LWG..." unless that is REALLY true.  It seems this is a
> Canadian initiative to move forward with these and I'm left with little to
> do from here to push it forward any differently than I have been.
>
> Thank you,
> 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

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

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 start, of course. Also, can someone explain to me the licensing issue? 
> How do datasets released under the open government license not meet the legal 
> requirements of the OSM license?

Then, On Jan 28, 2018, at 10:57 AM, James  wrote:
> license is federal, cities must modify it to apply to municipal, thus 
> creating new license

SO, please ladies and gentleman, "figure out" what your licensing status is, 
and document it.  First in 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities where it is now 
said these entries are incorrect (except for Ottawa).  Second in 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020/building_OD_tables,
 which now refers back to that page in all the "green" cells.

This is what OSM (partly) is:  documenting in a wiki (for all to see and share 
in the knowledge of) the status of licensing, a link to an Import Plan, helpful 
steps to take when you get stuck and don't know what to do, a place to propose 
streamlined or improved methodology, a way to capture the status of a project 
(whether with or without Task Manager links) perhaps using red/yellow/green 
color-coded cells, or cells that have "80% done" in them, as appropriate, et 
cetera.

The "scope of the work involved in updating the BC2020 OD tables" is not hard, 
it is this:

1)  View OD_tables wiki (the second link above)
2)  Click the Log In link (upper right) and enter your OSM wiki credentials 
(different than your OSM credentials)
3)  Click the Edit Source link (ditto), I don't recommend the 
usually-more-friendly-user-interface Edit link, as you are editing TABLES here, 
and (in my opinion) our wiki's raw (lightweight, relatively easy) markup 
language is the only sane choice here to edit table data entries
4)  Edit the table data for each cell which is now green (yes), but which 
should be red (no) or perhaps something in the middle, yellow (partial).  There 
are 11 colored cells now, 7 are green, 4 are yellow.  It seems 1 should be 
green (Ottawa) and therefore left alone, but the other ten should be changed to 
red or yellow.  So, GO!

OTHERS reading this list (not me!) must properly decide what these 
colors/statuses are, as I'm merely some guy in the USA who wants to see the 
project go forward, but the licenses, and importantly, their statuses as 
communicated to the rest of OSM via the Contributors page and the WikiProject 
BC2020 OD tables page are now confused/outdated/wrong and so these must be 
updated so they are correct for 2018, now and going forward.

> I offer to "change from green to red" wiki table status for all cities 
> (except Ottawa), although I'd also like to see Contributors be updated (with 
> only Ottawa) as I suggest.  Teamwork, anybody?  Simply to keep our 
> project-wide communication current?  It's neither difficult nor 
> time-consuming and shares present status with "the rest of us."

And my offer still stands, I just have no clue what is going on with these 
licenses.  Does anybody here?  Please, let's not kick this into "well, it's 
sorta lost in the LWG..." unless that is REALLY true.  It seems this is a 
Canadian initiative to move forward with these and I'm left with little to do 
from here to push it forward any differently than I have been.

Thank you,
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

[James]

license is federal, cities must modify it to apply to municipal, thus
creating new license

On Jan 28, 2018 1:52 PM, "Jonathan Brown" <jonab...@gmail.com> 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 start, of course. Also, can someone explain to me the
> licensing issue? How do datasets released under the open government license
> not meet the legal requirements of the OSM license?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 7:00 AM
> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 16
>
>
>
> Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
>
> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>
>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>
> talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>
> talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
>
>
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>
>
>1. weeklyOSM #392 2018-01-16-2018-01-22 (weeklyteam)
>
>2. Re: BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
>
>   (OSM Volunteer stevea)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Message: 1
>
> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 08:21:47 -0800 (PST)
>
> From: weeklyteam <theweekly@gmail.com>
>
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>
> Subject: [Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #392 2018-01-16-2018-01-22
>
> Message-ID: <5a6ca71b.d4951c0a.8ae59.9...@mx.google.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
> The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 392,
>
> is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all
> things happening in the openstreetmap world:
>
>
>
> http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9884/
>
>
>
> Enjoy!
>
>
>
> weeklyOSM?
>
> who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages
>
> where?: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-
> produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Message: 2
>
> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 12:41:23 -0800
>
> From: OSM Volunteer stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com>
>
> To: "Stewart C. Russell" <scr...@gmail.com>, talk-ca
>
> <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
>
> Message-ID: <1145fd9b-205b-4d3d-a8c8-0b2f5846a...@softworkers.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> 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 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.
>
>
>
> OK, so "correct" is to immediately remove from https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/
> Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities EVERY SINGLE CITY (except Ottawa).
> If it was an error to list them then, (that's what I read above) it is an
> error to list them now.  Anyone with an OSM wiki account can do this — and
> now, someone should, preferably someone in Canada with a sense of ownership
> that this process of entering additional Canadian cities into Contributors
> went awry.  This could be a majority of people reading this post:  any
> takers?
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> Some of us are lawyers (I'm not), though any OSM volunteer should strive
> to "d

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

[Jonathan Brown]

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 
start, of course. Also, can someone explain to me the licensing issue? How do 
datasets released under the open government license not meet the legal 
requirements of the OSM license? 

Jonathan 


From: talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 7:00 AM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 16

Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. weeklyOSM #392 2018-01-16-2018-01-22 (weeklyteam)
   2. Re: BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
  (OSM Volunteer stevea)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 08:21:47 -0800 (PST)
From: weeklyteam <theweekly@gmail.com>
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #392 2018-01-16-2018-01-22
Message-ID: <5a6ca71b.d4951c0a.8ae59.9...@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 392,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9884/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3

--

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 12:41:23 -0800
From: OSM Volunteer stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com>
To: "Stewart C. Russell" <scr...@gmail.com>, talk-ca
        <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
Message-ID: <1145fd9b-205b-4d3d-a8c8-0b2f5846a...@softworkers.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=utf-8

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 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.

OK, so "correct" is to immediately remove from 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities EVERY SINGLE 
CITY (except Ottawa).  If it was an error to list them then, (that's what I 
read above) it is an error to list them now.  Anyone with an OSM wiki account 
can do this — and now, someone should, preferably someone in Canada with a 
sense of ownership that this process of entering additional Canadian cities 
into Contributors went awry.  This could be a majority of people reading this 
post:  any takers?

> 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.

Some of us are lawyers (I'm not), though any OSM volunteer should strive to "do 
the right things," especially in matters related to "proper licensing."  Proper 
OD licensing is one task which has emerged as an "obstacle" (so documented in 
WikiProject BC2020) from the desire to see continuing project forward momentum.

To go forward, if wiki pages are outdated (and Stewart says above that they 
are), well, please update outdated wiki pages.  You don't have to be a lawyer 
to do that, especially as the data are known to be outdated or wrong.  
"Slogging through license work," partly DOES require being a lawyer (at least 
within OSM's LWG) and for the project to go forward, yes, that is a longer-term 
task to complete.  (I hesitate to say "slog," though it may be one).

I offer to "change from green to red" wiki table status for all cities (except 
Ottawa), although I'd also like to see Contributors be updated (with only 
Ottawa) as I suggest.  Teamwork, anybody?  Simply to keep our project-wide 
communicat

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

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Jan 26, 2018, at 8:12 PM, Stewart C. Russell  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 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.

OK, so "correct" is to immediately remove from 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities EVERY SINGLE 
CITY (except Ottawa).  If it was an error to list them then, (that's what I 
read above) it is an error to list them now.  Anyone with an OSM wiki account 
can do this — and now, someone should, preferably someone in Canada with a 
sense of ownership that this process of entering additional Canadian cities 
into Contributors went awry.  This could be a majority of people reading this 
post:  any takers?

> 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.

Some of us are lawyers (I'm not), though any OSM volunteer should strive to "do 
the right things," especially in matters related to "proper licensing."  Proper 
OD licensing is one task which has emerged as an "obstacle" (so documented in 
WikiProject BC2020) from the desire to see continuing project forward momentum.

To go forward, if wiki pages are outdated (and Stewart says above that they 
are), well, please update outdated wiki pages.  You don't have to be a lawyer 
to do that, especially as the data are known to be outdated or wrong.  
"Slogging through license work," partly DOES require being a lawyer (at least 
within OSM's LWG) and for the project to go forward, yes, that is a longer-term 
task to complete.  (I hesitate to say "slog," though it may be one).

I offer to "change from green to red" wiki table status for all cities (except 
Ottawa), although I'd also like to see Contributors be updated (with only 
Ottawa) as I suggest.  Teamwork, anybody?  Simply to keep our project-wide 
communication current?  It's neither difficult nor time-consuming and shares 
present status with "the rest of us."

We may not have brilliant ignition here, but at least the embers are orange and 
warm.  Though, after many lungfuls by me, I'm getting a bit dizzy stoking these 
fires.

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

[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