<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 21/08/2010 10:46 AM, JOHN SMART wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:696760.60682.qm@web88305.mail.re4.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style>
<div
style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div>G'Day Australian Mapper<br>
<br>
Perhaps someone from Natural Resources Canada (the Federal mapping
agency) could give a better answer, but my understanding is:<br>
<br>
-
CanVec originated from the NTDB (National Topographic Database) which
is essentially the same data as is used for the (sometimes quite out of
date) 1:50 000 scale National Topographic Series maps. That is all
Federal data.<br>
<br>
- GeoBase is an initiative which aims to reduce
duplication of work / costs by having Provinces (equivalent to Aus.
states) or other entities supply "best" data to the Feds.<br>
<br>
Thus GeoBase would actually be an example of the left hand working in
partnership with the right hand.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
So it seems like CanVec is a top down approach (originally built on
national scale acquisition approaches) and GeoBase is a bottom up
approach (originally built from local government property tax / parcel
surveying approaches)?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:696760.60682.qm@web88305.mail.re4.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div
style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div><br>
I believe CanVec is being updated with any better sources as they
become available, e.g. National Roads Network (NRN) gets migrated into
new editions of CanVec.<br>
<br>
I
believe there are many data themes that are in CanVec which are not in
GeoBase, and presumably never will be in GeoBase unless the initiative
is extended to include agreements for those themes.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
So perhaps I can adopt a "try GeoBase first, CanVec second" approach?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:696760.60682.qm@web88305.mail.re4.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div
style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div>If I have misunderstood anything I'd be delighted to be
corrected.<br>
<br>
Now, what is "CommonMap"? I had never heard of that until now. A quick
web search gets me here:<br>
<span><a moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://commonmap.info/w/index.php/Main_Page">http://commonmap.info/w/index.php/Main_Page</a></span><br>
<br>
It
looks to me like it is a very similar concept to OSM, apart from
licensing perhaps. So it makes me wonder if we have a "left hand -
right hand" situation there?<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We're a bunch of people (now incorporated) dissatisfied with the OSMF
licence change, to the point where we realised the Share Alike
provision actually isn't a good fit for us at all. (There is also a
different fork in the works for those who believe in -SA but are happy
with today's OSM licence.) From my own perspective I don't mind having
my contributions used anywhere, and I want to build roundtripping
opportunties with traditional mapping agencies. Both of which OSM is
limiting by design.<br>
<br>
Mind you, one hand (CommonMap) will be able to talk to the other hand
(OpenStreetMap) because our CC BY / PD licence is compatible with CC
BY-SA. It's just that the other direction is not allowed by the -SA
provision.<br>
<br>
<br>
Brendan<br>
</body>
</html>