<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div><span>Frank, </span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>I dont think we can considere these as Open Data compatible with ODbl.<br></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span><br></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>We dont know the license for Surete du Québec map. And no licensing
information is given on the toponyms site. You would have to contact them before using this information.<br></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>The government of Québec has just started is Open Data site and as discussed before on the list their license is not considered compatible with ODbl.</span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>But they are open to
discussion. After I wrote a request on the Open Data site, I was contacted last week by a government of Québec person. This person wants to clarify licensing problems. I will write a specific memo about that.</span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span><br></span></div><br> <div><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(0, 0, 191);font-weight:bold;">Pierre <br></span><br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> <div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">De :</span></b> Frank Steggink <steggink@steggink.org><br> <b><span
style="font-weight: bold;">À :</span></b> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Envoyé le :</span></b> Mercredi 22 août 2012 11h52<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Objet :</span></b> Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec import issues<br> </font> </div> <br>Hi Pierre,<br><br>Regarding the duplicated ways, I'll get to that by replying Daniel's mail.<br>Regarding the toponyms, the user I'm having contact with is refering to Sûreté de Québec, for example this page: <a href="http://www.sq.gouv.qc.ca/poste-mrc-des-pays-d-en-haut/organisation/carte-detaillee-pays-haut.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.sq.gouv.qc.ca/poste-mrc-des-pays-d-en-haut/organisation/carte-detaillee-pays-haut.pdf</a><br><br>I don't know if both data sources can be considered public domain. As far as I know, the guidelines for the federal government don't apply to provincial and local governments. See also the discussion about importing data from
the Ville de Québec.<br><br>Frank<br><br>On 21-8-2012 20:59, Pierre Béland wrote:<br>> Frank<br>> <br>> The NEtiquette is always important in these circumstances. Lets hope this mapper will learn how to deal with the community.<br>> <br>> I Looked rapidly at the data.I see a multipolygon natural=wood Relation : 2362646 that contains 72 members. I see that you imported a wooded area way=176778952 that is part of this relation. It also overlaps for the 2/3 with a lake way=57988179. I see similar situation with way 176778559. Unless I missed something, my understanding is that you should simply remove ways 176778952 and 176778559 and any others that duplicate what is already defined by relation 2362646.<br>> <br>> The Quebec toponyms may sometime be more complete then Canvec. But not all the lakes have names and it is not easy to find infos for a specific area. You can search for a specific name at <a
href="http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/" target="_blank">http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/</a>.<br>> See <a href="http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/ToposWeb/recherche.aspx?s=lac-ouimet&x=0&y=0" target="_blank">http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/ToposWeb/recherche.aspx?s=lac-ouimet&x=0&y=0</a> for lac Ouimet results<br>> Pierre<br>> <br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> *De :* Frank Steggink <<a ymailto="mailto:steggink@steggink.org" href="mailto:steggink@steggink.org">steggink@steggink.org</a>><br>> *À :* <a ymailto="mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>> *Envoyé le :* Mardi 21 août 2012 13h32<br>> *Objet :* [Talk-ca] Canvec import issues<br>> <br>> Hi,<br>> <br>> Today I was
contacted by someone inquiring (with a somewhat<br>> hostile tone) after the Canvec import I've done over the weekend<br>> northwest of Montréal. He was not really happy with the way how<br>> the import has handled. The way the Canvec data is currently<br>> provided, leaves some room for improvement. I'm not sure if all<br>> his issues have been discussed in the past (since I haven't<br>> followed all Canvec discussions, especially in the beginning), but<br>> I could see some merit in some of the point.<br>> <br>> Some examples he provided come from the Mt. Tremblant area [1].<br>> Note that the lakes (and most of the streams) were imported<br>> previously by someone else, based on NHN data, but the same issue<br>> plays with the Canvec data itself. (This left me to
the task to<br>> leave the Canvec lakes out of the upload, as well as most streams.)<br>> <br>> On the left you see Lac Ouimet. He mentioned that a large part of<br>> the ways are duplicated. The outer boundary of the wooded area is<br>> a separate polygon from the lake itself. However, Lac Gauthier on<br>> the right is a different case. This lake has been "cut out" from<br>> the woods, and I left the inner boundary intact. JOSM is not<br>> complaining about this. Since dealing with multipolygons remains a<br>> sticky issue, I have not done that. I think it would be better to<br>> take care of these issues with some tool. Although using a tool is<br>> considered "dangerously" (and rightfully so!), dealing with<br>> multipolygons is prone to errors as
well.<br>> <br>> Another issue is that some lakes do not have names, but contain a<br>> separate node (not part of any of the ways) with natural=water and<br>> name=* tags. I can only assume that this comes from the source<br>> data. In many cases it is hard to determine the extent of the<br>> lake, since it can gradually taper into a river. This was not<br>> mentioned directly by the user, but I thought he was referring to<br>> this.<br>> <br>> His issue turned out to be somewhat different. There is a place<br>> node near Lac Gauthier, with the same name. I explained to this<br>> that this must be the name of a hamlet. The non-official tag<br>> "place=locality" is probably due to this confusion. This name is<br>> also visible on the original topo
map [2].<br>> <br>> Furthermore he noticed that I have duplicated his address nodes<br>> and ways. This was an omission, so I have corrected this. I scan<br>> the existing data in order not to duplicate existing features. Of<br>> course this is prone to errors as well, especially in a large area<br>> which is void of address nodes and ways, except for two ways<br>> around a lake...<br>> <br>> I'm not asking anyone for "solutions". I can easily think about<br>> them as well, but that doesn't make the problem go away. Thinking<br>> about the solution is the easiest part, but working it out and<br>> implementing it is much more difficult. It is more than simply<br>> typing in some code and then run it over the data. Instead of<br>> doing that, I have
tried to explain him something about the hybrid<br>> data model OSM is using (not purely geographical, but also not<br>> purely topological). And of course there is also the gap between<br>> idealists and realists. I see the current state of OSM as the<br>> status quo, so I take it for granted. I think that Canvec falls<br>> within that status quo situation as well, otherwise the OSM data<br>> offered by NRCan would have looked differently, after all those<br>> years of discussions and reviews.<br>> <br>> I have invited this user to discuss the issues he found on<br>> talk-ca. I think that would be much more constructive than having<br>> him directing all those issues to me, since they occur far beyond<br>> his own backyard as well...<br>> <br>>
Regards,<br>> <br>> Frank<br>> <br>> <br>> [1]<br>> <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.1749&lon=-74.5535&zoom=14&layers=M" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.1749&lon=-74.5535&zoom=14&layers=M</a><br>> [2]<br>> <a href="ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/canmatrix2/50k_tif/031/j/canmatrix2_031j02_tif.zip" target="_blank">ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/canmatrix2/50k_tif/031/j/canmatrix2_031j02_tif.zip</a><br>> <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Talk-ca mailing list<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Talk-ca mailing list<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Talk-ca mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br><br><br> </div> </div> </blockquote></div> </div></body></html>