<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi Alessandro,</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">This is great news.
Thanks for sharing. Getting a subset of the municipalities' data
into a repository with a common license will be be a huge step
forward. Once you have some data in the repository, then the
broader OSM community can look at how to import the data into
OSM. Then as more municipality's data gets into the repository,
then OSM import work can expand.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">So my suggestion to you
is thus: work to get a <b>subset</b> of the data assembled
under the license first. Then expand coverage second. This
enables planning for imports to start sooner and would engage
the broader OSM community. I believe the work the broader
community is doing now is mostly focused on tracing building
footprints based on satellite images.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Personally, I believe
that the Federal Government should play a role in consolidating
municipal open data. It's much easier to make the data <b>usable</b>
by having one way (or small number of ways) of representing
things across the country than to have 100s of different
Municipalities doing things in their own way and left as an
exercise for the user to sort that all out.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"></font><br>
</p>
On 2018-02-07 09:42 AM, Alasia, Alessandro (STATCAN) wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E1ejQvn-0004W8-T2@shenron.openstreetmap.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from rtf -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
<font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div><font color="#1F497D">Dear all,</font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D">It is fantastic to see all these
exchanges about BC2020i! There are a lot of great ideas
and improvements being made. I cannot follow up on each
point, though I wanted to update you regarding one area of
specific relevance: the attempt
to find a solution to the licensing issue for building
related datasets. I believe this is one area where my team
can contribute to support the BC2020i.</font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D">With my team, I am looking into the
feasibility of compiling all available municipal open data
files into one single file and then releasing this single
file under one common license, specifically the open data
licence of the Canadian
federal government. This would, hopefully, solve the
license compatibility issue. We are still exploring this
possibility but are moderately optimistic.</font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D">So far we started with the "easy"
task: compiling all the known files – a special thanks to
those who contributed to the tables on the BC2020i wiki
page! With that and other OD sources, we compiled an
"OpenAddressRepository" file
of nearly 11 million records (georeferenced) and an
"OpenBuildingRepository" file of nearly 3.2 million
polygons (still in progress). Preliminary analysis
suggests that the coverage and geocoding are very
promising. More importantly, given that the files all
originate from official municipal sources, there should be
no reason to doubt the quality of the data. </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D">The next step, for us, is to look
at the process required to release these files with a GoC
open data license. We do not yet have a clear timeline for
release, but if this idea is possible, we should almost
certainly make it before
the timelines that were discussed on Talk-ca for vetting
each and all individual municipal open data licenses -
2080s or 2030s if I recall correctly :-) </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D">We believe this solution/approach,
if successful, puts an end to the issue of license
compatibility (at least for the files found thus far) and
greatly facilitates the use of these open data by the
general public as well as the private
and public sector. Furthermore, and more importantly for
BC2020i, this solution paves the way for the many local
OSM groups to import these open data as they see fit. As
well, once the large national level files are released, we
might be able to collaborate
with local groups and provide more manageable partitions
of the larger files. </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D">Of course, this approach will not
necessarily solve the license compatibility issue for all
types of municipal files. Thus, needless to say, anybody
is obviously free to pursue submitting individual
municipal OD licenses to the License
Working Group of OSM. Though, given that the Working
Group resources are scarce, and assuming the approach
outlined above works for building footprints, we would be
happy to discuss the feasibility of compiling and
re-releasing other municipal open data under
the open data licence of the Canadian federal government.
</font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D">Finally, as I mentioned in other
communications, my team is also exploring other activities
that will hopefully contribute to the BC2020i. These
activities touch on data analysis, data monitoring, and
building footprint extraction
from satellite imagery. For this work, we are primarily
using open source tools and applications that can be
integrated in open source environments (more updates on
all of this hopefully soon!).</font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D">More updates, feedback, and follow
up on other interesting points of discussion later on. </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D">Regards to all,</font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#1F497D">Alessandro and DEIL team</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</span></font>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>