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
Hello talk-ca: I'm resurrecting a month-old thread (about bicycling) as my
initial post here.
I'm a California-based (USA) nearly nine-year veteran of OSM. My wiki user
page at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/User:Stevea shares some details of my
mapping, including parks and other
> There are many more tasks on the task manager related to buildings if you are
> so inclined to add them. Is that the best way to go? or people can check
> the task manager for projects in their area of interest? (new tasks can be
> easily added to the task manager... just ask!)
I sort of
On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:55 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> I'm all for using the wiki, just want to consider the maintenance effort of
> keeping the tasking manager in sync with the wiki. If someone wants to do
> that, so much the better! Wikis can get stale quickly without
On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:13 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> I'm not who the "movers and shakers" are really. There is nobody really
> driving this project that I am aware of (the wiki suggests we should have a
> steering committee). Every time I see email sent to the original
On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> I should mention that there are others in Ottawa working on completing the
> buildings. The City import only had urban buildings. Since the city of
> Ottawa is the largest rural city in Canada, so much work still to do.
On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:16 PM, john whelan wrote:
> About six years ago I wanted to import the local bus stops but the licences
> weren't aligned. It took about five years for the Canadian Federal
> Government to first adopt an Open Government license that was open enough
> On Jan 26, 2018, at 2:13 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-01-25 04:00 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>> The other wiki (linked to in the "main" BC2020i wiki's "Inventory of
>> Current Building Data Sets" section):
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
The first (municipal) OD table in
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
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;
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
Talk-ca mailing list
On Jan 29, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-01-29 04:37 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>> OSM is delighted to receive building data in Canada, truly we are.
>> (Provided they are high-quality data). I have heard the process o
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...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.
> On Jan 28, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
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
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
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
OK, I've redacted Halifax changes. From four to three (municipalities with
license now "green.")
> On Jan 28, 2018, at 7:39 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-01-28 09:16 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>> Halifax also looks lik
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
Smiling here, thank you for wiki-ing fresher status in both wikis! (It's quite
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
> • 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
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.
Please see https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:level
Talk-ca mailing list
> 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
I smell a harmonization with admin_level...not that there's anything wrong with
Talk-ca mailing list
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
On Feb 16, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Bill & Kathy Patterson
> 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
> 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."
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
at 12:50 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thats how its written. even on signs to there
> On Feb 16, 2018 3:47 PM, "OSM Volunteer stevea" <stevea...@softworkers.com>
> On Feb 16, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Matthew D
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
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.
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.
Talk-ca mailing list
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
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. :-)
On Feb 19, 2018, at 2:00 PM, 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
ry good or even excellent and well-thought out and discussed, as are
developing public_transport OSM data in Canada. We're making a great map.
Thank you again for spirited and interesting discussion.
> On Jul 16, 2018, at 6:06 PM, Damien Riegel wrote:
> On 12 July 2018 at
ed with this and whilst we
> > should cater to these foreign tourists I think what is on the signs locally
> > will be less confusing to the locals unless of course we get many more
> > people streaming in to escape Donald.
> > Or have I misunderstood some p
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".
r d’OSM et
continueraient d’atteindre cet objectif.
> On Aug 12, 2018, at 4:59 PM, James wrote:
> Résumé très facile: Paris ou la france ≠ Le Québec.
> Le Québec fait les chose très différente de la France.
> On Sun., Aug. 12, 2018, 8:36 p.m. OSM
probably get confused with this and whilst we
> should cater to these foreign tourists I think what is on the signs locally
> will be less confusing to the locals unless of course we get many more people
> streaming in to escape Donald.
> Or have I misunderstood some poor
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
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
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
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
On Jan 23, 2018, at 5:53 PM, john whelan wrote:
> It should have been 60 per hour. Apols. I can probably map at one per five
> seconds but new mappers did and will take much longer. The iD figures of
> four to twenty buildings per mapathon session are real numbers.
I agree that absolute novices unfamiliar with OSM are not what we might call
"an ideal candidate," for BC2020i but it certainly has been and can be done.
That said, "coming with Java preloaded" is a certain kind of "trigger warning"
that "you have to be this tall to ride the ride." That's
Oops, the bicycle router I wanted to refer to in my previous is
http://cycle.travel by Richard Fairhurst (whom I inexplicably confused with
Talk-ca mailing list
John Whelan says:
There are obviously "deep thoughts" going on regarding how OSM can document and
provide better geo data, routing and maps for Canadian cyclists: my hat is off
to the serious "front-loading" going on here and I wish to encourage it so that
it may flourish.
There's also documentation that Ottawa is using(not final thats why its not on
the wiki) with example pictures:
There are differences with respect to US bike pathes
Thanks for the link to that page,
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
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
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
Being as gentle (though not local) as I can be, I continue to assert that our
wiki for BC2020 in general and
as a specific section IN that wiki (calling attention to these tags, with
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
Je conviens qu'il est plus facile de rédiger un "plan d'importation" unique
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
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
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
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.
Additionally, the greater OSM community looks forward to your Import Plan that
follows our Import Guidelines (
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 11:22 AM, John Whelan wrote:
> I think on the OSM side we probably need to
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
If you mean me, I'm saddened to hear that others think I "yell." Rather, my
On Nov 6, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Pierre Béland wrote:
> Petit test rapide avec Overpass. J'observe que les clés suivantes sont
> exemple https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19692719
> La Requête Overpass ci-dessous avec paramètre
Between "out meta;" and "out meta qt;" there should be a >; but sometimes this
Entre "out meta;" et "out meta qt;" il devrait y avoir un >; mais parfois cela
So, I'm choosing to share an "OT share link:"
Donc, je choisis de partager un "lien de partage OT:"
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
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:
When it dialogs that the query will return a lot of data,
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.
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
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 (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
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
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
The thread link is:
Talk-ca mailing list
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 2:01 PM, James wrote:
> Is there no one that will analyse the data I've posted here?
> or are we just email thread warriors?
Well, slow down there, cowboy, it is gigabytes of data and I've
with memory options
> (Xms, Xmx), or it will crap out at 3.5GB
> On Sat., Jan. 19, 2019, 5:13 p.m. OSM Volunteer stevea
> On Jan 19, 2019, at 2:01 PM, James wrote:
> > Is there no one that will analyse the data I've posted here?
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d
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
Mail list logo