[Talk-ca] Fwd: GeoBase vs CanVec

Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com
Sat Aug 21 03:22:21 BST 2010


and so...
I'm happly working on all 3 projects :)


and of course, following the licence turms for each project. ....
hence, why i am only mapping the abandond railway line routes & most
recommended routes across Canada. ....'cause all i want is to use the
best basemaps available... to make my wikiMap Books ... all for free.


so i'm able to help out where i can :)


cheers,
sam vekemans
Across Canada Trails

On 8/20/10, Brendan Morley <morb.gis at beagle.com.au> wrote:
> On 21/08/2010 10:46 AM, JOHN SMART wrote:
>> G'Day Australian Mapper
>>
>> Perhaps someone from Natural Resources Canada (the Federal mapping
>> agency) could give a better answer, but my understanding is:
>>
>> - 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 out of date) 1:50 000 scale National Topographic Series maps.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.
>>
>> - 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.
>>
>> Thus GeoBase would actually be an example of the left hand working in
>> partnership with the right hand.
>
> 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)?
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
> So perhaps I can adopt a "try GeoBase first, CanVec second" approach?
>
>> If I have misunderstood anything I'd be delighted to be corrected.
>>
>> Now, what is "CommonMap"? I had never heard of that until now. A quick
>> web search gets me here:
>> http://commonmap.info/w/index.php/Main_Page
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Brendan
>


-- 
Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/
http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
Skype: samvekemans
IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room)
@Acrosscanadatrails



More information about the Talk-ca mailing list