Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i - Solving the licensing issues

Makes sense Stewart! On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > On 2018-02-08 08:39 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: > > > > OSM resembles ordnance survey as was part of the original raison > > d'etre When it started in the UK, but that does not preclude the > >

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i - Solving the licensing issues

On 2018-02-08 08:39 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: > > OSM resembles ordnance survey as was part of the original raison > d'etre When it started in the UK, but that does not preclude the > possibility of incorporating administrative boundaries such as wards, > and less formal boundaries such as

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i - Solving the licensing issues

This is great! And it reflects the recommendations provided at the first consultation meetings with your management at Satistics Canada. I believe there is merit in talking with the municipalities from whom you are accessing the data, simply as a courtesy, but also as a way to enlist them as part

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i - Solving the licensing issues

Hi John, I think this approach has merit. Probably it would work if we take a similar approach to what BikeOttawa is doing with OSM data, they wanted a "Level Of Traffic Stress" map.  To that they defined the set of interesting tags, started collecting data, then draw a map.  Now people are

Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i - Solving the licensing issues

James, Good point about the quality and attributes of the data will definitely not be consistent between municipalities. As long as the source is identifiable, then the face it is one "file" or many, would be an implementation detail.  IMO. On 2018-02-07 09:46 AM, James wrote: why does it