<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2657.73">
<TITLE>Re: [OSM-talk] Canadian (Gov't supplied) vector data</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It turns out that there are two publicly available Canadian road </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>network files. The one cited earlier is made available from Natural </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Resources Canada, and relies on data they have compiled from </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>municipal governments, provincial and territorial governments, and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Natural Resources Canada itself. The problem with this file, as it is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>now constituted, at least the last time I looked at it, is that it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>has very little useful attribute information (it doesn't have street </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>names and address ranges). As a result, ignoring the license issues </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>for the moment, the value to effort ratio isn't high. The last time I </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>grabbed data from Geobase, they threw in a questionnaire as part of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the download process asking what were priority items, and of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>choices on that list was adding civic address attributes to the road </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>network layer.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The second Canadian road network file is published by Statistics </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Canada, and can be obtained from</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2><A HREF="http://geodepot.statcan.ca/Diss/2006Dissemination/Data/FRR_RNF_e.cfm" TARGET="_blank">http://geodepot.statcan.ca/Diss/2006Dissemination/Data/FRR_RNF_e.cfm</A></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The vector data in this file was collected by a combination of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Statistics Canada (in more populated areas) and Elections Canada (in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>less populated areas). There is a lot more relevant attribute data in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the Statistics Canada RNF (e.g., it does have address range data in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>more populated areas), but it could stand more (e.g., local area </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>identifiers such as municipality or the first three digits of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>local postal code). In addition, the two different road network </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>layers do not "line up", they are close (with Statistics Canada </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>rubber sheeting their layer to the extent possible to match the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Natural Resources Canada layer, which Statistics Canada appears to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>believe is more spatially accurate then their own layer). The </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Statistics Canada layer has an EULA (yes, it is an EULA, as is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Natural Resources Canada's agreement, but a very flexible one that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>allows for the creation of derivative works that can be commercially </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>marketed) that is very close, but not 100% identical, to the one for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the Natural Resources Canada Layer. The other thing is that a revised </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>version of this layer is scheduled to be released by Statistics </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Canada in September.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I thought about adding one of these layers to OSM, but didn't think </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the EULA was compatible with OSM's CC Share Alike licensing based on </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>my reading of the two, but I'm not a lawyer either. The other thing </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that held me back is that there is a fair amount of flux in the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>structure of this data at the moment with a new layer about to be </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>made available from Statistics Canada and the possibility of Natural </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Resources Canada releasing better attribute information. Moreover, I </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>have this sneaking suspicion that at some point Statistics Canada and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Natural Resources Canada will jointly release a single road network </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>layer rather than the Canadian government maintaining two different </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>road layers.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Dan</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On 3-Aug-06, at 8:39 AM, Emil wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> On 8/3/06, Dan Karran <dan@karran.net> wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> On 8/3/06, Interlug <interlug@weait.net> wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> > Canadian road data (and more) is available at <A HREF="http://" TARGET="_blank">http://</A> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> geobase.ca/ Their</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> > license appears (to this non-lawyer) to be compatible with the OSM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> > licence. <A HREF="http://geobase.ca/geobase/en/licence.jsp" TARGET="_blank">http://geobase.ca/geobase/en/licence.jsp</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> > Is this a worthy uploading and conversion project for OSM?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> IANAL but it seems like it's compatible. It looks like we can use it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> pretty much freely and base derivatives upon it. However...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I'm not sure it does.... They say it can be revoked at any time, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> in any case is only valid for 1 year....</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I'm not sure a court would accept that their revoking would trigger a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> copyright infringement, but still....</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Also the whole thing is quite dodgy, referring to "Intellectual</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> property rights", whatever they are, rather than copyrights, etc. It</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> reads more like an EULA. I think they're confused.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Emil</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> _______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> talk mailing list</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> talk@openstreetmap.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> <A HREF="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk" TARGET="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk</A></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>