[OSM-talk-be] cadastral plan now open data

[André Pirard]

On 2018-09-21 12:46, joost schouppe wrote:
> Op vr 24 aug. 2018 om 13:58 schreef joost schouppe 
> <joost.schouppe at gmail.com <mailto:joost.schouppe at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     The cadastral plan is now open data for the entire country!
>
>     That's pretty big because:
>     - for Wallonia, it's the first open vector data with parcels,
>     buildings, roads and road names.
>     - contains "underground buildings" which were not available
>     anywhere AFAIK.
>     - there's a dataset with roads that have some kind of
>     "erfdienstbaarheid"/"servitude". This might be of use for certain
>     dubious paths
>
>     But of course, please note:
>     - there is way more data where this came from - the attributes of
>     the parcel are not included (like building levels, number of
>     units, landuse)
>     - 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.
>     - do not trust road name data (it doesn't follow the CRAB name, so
>     not official in Flanders). Names are often abbreviated
>     - the roads do not form a network, there are duplicate geometries
>     and some geometries are outdated by half a century
>     - there is pretty good metadata included. However, you might find
>     data that does not follow the explained model
>
>     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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors
>
>     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!
>
>     More details:
>     * Official website:
>     https://financien.belgium.be/nl/particulieren/woning/kadaster/kadastraal-plan
>     https://finances.belgium.be/fr/particuliers/habitation/revenu_cadastral/plan-cadastral
>
>     * Metadata:
>     https://financien.belgium.be/sites/default/files/20180626_Dataspecificaties.pdf
>     https://finances.belgium.be/sites/default/files/20180626_Specificationsdata.pdf
>
>     * Repackaged into an open data format:
>     http://data.highlatitud.es/cadaster-belgium/
>
>     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.
>
>     Happy mapping,
>     -- 
>     Joost Schouppe
>     OpenStreetMap
>     <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter
>     <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
>     <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
>     <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | 
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup 
> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>
On 2018-09-21 12:46, joost schouppe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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!
Whether "shown by default" or not, that WMS exists, mappers can use it 
anyway, and it's *very useful **as a _complement_ to be used in parallel 
with JOSM+PICC* (or AGIV I suppose) and *only that*. "only" because I 
have *extremely important* remarks (complete with images) to make about 
the imprecision of that WMS or is it the whole cadastre.

I removed that cadastre JOSM default layer for two reasons.
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.
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.
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.
Second reason below...
> But even for the license of the downloadable files the JOSM team 
> seemed a bit worried: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/16693#comment:7
> 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.
... 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.
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.
But what better definition of Opendata can be made than this from the 
government themselves <https://statbel.fgov.be/fr/open-data>?
> Les open data sont des données publiques à caractère non personnel, 
> qui sont informatisées, répondent aux normes du format ouvert et 
> peuvent être *réutilisées gratuitement*. *T**out le monde* peut 
> utiliser gratuitement ces open data, *à des fins aussi bien 
> commerciales que non commerciales*.
Exactly the same language as for the PICC WMS.
I'm afraid I am not interested arguing about this with persons who 
cannot read.
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.
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.

(1) Someone once said that OSM has nothing to do with the dictionary.
The dictionary defines every word we write unless we make another 
definition.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20180921/05b7b881/attachment.htm>