I’ll raise the issue with the Open Government folks at tomorrow’s meeting. I’m
slowly beginning to see what lies beneath the tip of the iceberg on the
licensing issue.
https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/478/using-canvec-from-natural-resources-canada
and Scuss’s post on untangling CanVec
http://glaikit.org/2010/05/23/untangling-canvec/
Jonathan
From: talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 4:57 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 22
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. Re: BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status (Matthew Darwin)
2. Re: BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status (john whelan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 16:31:16 -0500
From: Matthew Darwin <matt...@mdarwin.ca>
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
Message-ID: <80d1816a-2bca-84a2-39e8-35952d6c5...@mdarwin.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
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 everymunicipality/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 Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://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 <mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:29 PM
> *To: *Jonathan Brown <mailto:jonab...@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20180128/b5df81ba/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 16:57:22 -0500
From: john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Darwin <matt...@mdarwin.ca>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status
Message-ID:
<caj-ex1hacvmyxgrosb9ft5vjo1tmhbk4jtwkbq77xanaxkg...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing
> listTalk-ca@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20180128/33c6e796/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
------------------------------
End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 22
****************************************
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
