<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-09-21 12:46, joost schouppe
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO2_g7LYnSor9Vt_Wmco=MCkcwznD07BoCMZDzH7QWBtOrN3Zg@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">Op vr 24 aug. 2018 om 13:58 schreef joost
schouppe <<a href="mailto:joost.schouppe@gmail.com">joost.schouppe@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The cadastral plan is now open data for the entire
country!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That's pretty big because:<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>- for Wallonia, it's the first open vector data
with parcels, buildings, roads and road names. <br>
</div>
<div>- contains "underground buildings" which were not
available anywhere AFAIK.</div>
<div>- there's a dataset with roads that have some kind
of "erfdienstbaarheid"/"servitude". This might be of
use for certain dubious paths<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But of course, please note:</div>
<div>- there is way more data where this came from - the
attributes of the parcel are not included (like
building levels, number of units, landuse)<br>
</div>
<div>- Belgian cadastre data has a bad reputation in
general so do not trust everything you see. The
building geometry seems to be quite poor, especially
when it comes to exact positioning, not so much the
shape itself.<br>
</div>
<div>- do not trust road name data (it doesn't follow
the CRAB name, so not official in Flanders). Names are
often abbreviated<br>
</div>
<div>- the roads do not form a network, there are
duplicate geometries and some geometries are outdated
by half a century <br>
</div>
<div>- there is pretty good metadata included. However,
you might find data that does not follow the explained
model</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The license file is included in any download. It
seems to be compatible with OSM, but it would be nice
if more people give it a good read. The first one to
use it for mapping, does need to add it to <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors"
target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The data is in shapefile format (boooo!), but
Philippe Duchesne has made a download site where you
can get it in geopackage format. There is also a
"view" link. To actually see the data there, find the
big switches to activate the layers you want to see.
The bigger ones take a while to load!<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>More details:</div>
<div>* Official website: <br>
</div>
</div>
<div><a
href="https://financien.belgium.be/nl/particulieren/woning/kadaster/kadastraal-plan"
target="_blank">https://financien.belgium.be/nl/particulieren/woning/kadaster/kadastraal-plan</a></div>
<div><a
href="https://finances.belgium.be/fr/particuliers/habitation/revenu_cadastral/plan-cadastral"
target="_blank">https://finances.belgium.be/fr/particuliers/habitation/revenu_cadastral/plan-cadastral</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* Metadata:</div>
<div><a
href="https://financien.belgium.be/sites/default/files/20180626_Dataspecificaties.pdf"
target="_blank">https://financien.belgium.be/sites/default/files/20180626_Dataspecificaties.pdf</a><br>
</div>
<div><a
href="https://finances.belgium.be/sites/default/files/20180626_Specificationsdata.pdf"
target="_blank">https://finances.belgium.be/sites/default/files/20180626_Specificationsdata.pdf</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* Repackaged into an open data format:</div>
<div><a
href="http://data.highlatitud.es/cadaster-belgium/"
target="_blank">http://data.highlatitud.es/cadaster-belgium/</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We think this data will only be usable for validation
efforts. If you think an import could be useful for some
of the data in some places, do not forget to follow the
Import Guidelines or risk having your work reverted.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Happy mapping,<br>
</div>
<div>-- <br>
<div dir="ltr"
class="m_-9182233918464343249gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Joost Schouppe</div>
<div dir="ltr"><a
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/"
target="_blank">OpenStreetMap</a> | <a
href="https://twitter.com/joostjakob"
target="_blank">Twitter</a> | <a
href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603"
target="_blank">LinkedIn</a> | <a
href="http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/"
target="_blank">Meetup</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Joost Schouppe</div>
<div dir="ltr"><a
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/"
target="_blank">OpenStreetMap</a> | <a
href="https://twitter.com/joostjakob"
target="_blank">Twitter</a> | <a
href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603"
target="_blank">LinkedIn</a> | <a
href="http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/"
target="_blank">Meetup</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
On 2018-09-21 12:46, joost schouppe wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO2_g7LYnSor9Vt_Wmco=MCkcwznD07BoCMZDzH7QWBtOrN3Zg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hi,
<div><br>
<div>André asked to include the WMS of this service by
default in the JOSM repository. A long conversation
ensued. Some of the confusion is caused by the fact that
the WMS probably contains outdated license info. I have
now asked the FOD Finances for a second time to clarify
this. The ticket was closed, which is probably a good
thing, as it is probably not a good idea to show this data
by default in JOSM anyway!</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Whether "shown by default" or not, that WMS exists, mappers can use
it anyway, and it's <b>very useful </b><b>as a <u>complement</u>
to be used in parallel with JOSM+PICC</b> (or AGIV I suppose) and
<b>only that</b>. "only" because I have <b>extremely important</b>
remarks (complete with images) to make about the imprecision of that
WMS or is it the whole cadastre.<br>
<br>
I removed that cadastre JOSM default layer for two reasons.<br>
To avoid mappers jumping on it and mapping (quite generously,
pitifully) the same imprecise mess that we see now in Wallonia as
the result of what was started with Potlatch and ID using various
inappropriate sources instead of using JOSM+PICC/AGIV, which are now
in charge of correcting those errors.<br>
But before making those remarks, I have to see if that imprecision
is of the 2018 shape data too or just of the 2017 WMS in which case
it would be quite appropriate to ask the Finances to upgrade it.<br>
So far, I've had problems browsing the shape data. It seems that it
contains the same errors as the WMS but I want to be absolutely sure
before speaking.<br>
Second reason below...<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO2_g7LYnSor9Vt_Wmco=MCkcwznD07BoCMZDzH7QWBtOrN3Zg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>But even for the license of the downloadable files the
JOSM team seemed a bit worried: <a
href="https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/16693#comment:7"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/16693#comment:7</a></div>
<div>When I read the license, I felt attribution requierement
in the license was defined loosely enough that mentioning it
under Contributors would be enough. It would be nice to hear
from other people how they interpret this license.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
... because I did not want to get involved again in the same as
those discussions that lasted 2 years, and even a grand total of 8
years, to prove the obvious for the PICC.<br>
In the above ticket, I read as a proof against my quoting that
Belgium released the Cadastre as Opendata that "Opendata is just a
word". And, indeed, words often lack a definition (1), like
"survey, designated, terrace" etc.<br>
But what better definition of Opendata can be made than <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://statbel.fgov.be/fr/open-data">this
from the government themselves</a>?<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Les open data sont des données publiques à
caractère non personnel, qui sont informatisées, répondent aux
normes du format ouvert et peuvent être <b>réutilisées
gratuitement</b>. <b>T</b><b>out le monde</b> peut utiliser
gratuitement ces open data, <b>à des fins aussi bien commerciales
que non commerciales</b>.</blockquote>
Exactly the same language as for the PICC WMS.<br>
I'm afraid I am not interested arguing about this with persons who
cannot read.<br>
If the problem that the vigilantes claim is that the owners could
complain about me and if the owners say they won't, then there is no
problem and happily I map, we map.<br>
I was once accused of using Michelin. It would be very stupid
because that map is extremely coarse, and I dare say I'm not
stupid. Out of curiosity, I wrote to Michelin in very good French
and asked very precisely if I could do what I was accused of doing.
I asked where is their copyright, the terms of it. They (she)
replied (in French) "at the bottom left of the screen". That's the
icon. Precision again.<br>
<br>
(1) Someone once said that OSM has nothing to do with the
dictionary.<br>
The dictionary defines every word we write unless we make another
definition.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>