[Talk-ca] Importing MLI park boundaries

[Samuel Dyck]

Thanks Sam. Now hopefully no one on the other boards will rip into me 
for daring to import. :) You might also want to look at the MLI 
provincial forest data and the other goodies on the admin. boundaries 
list. (I don't know what you are interested in). Sadly with the 
exception of the Winnipeg Transit, the City of Winnipeg doesn't believe 
in open data.

Sam

On 11-03-26 12:15 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote:
> I guess the OpenStreetMap Foundation's Map (odbl only) has not yet
> been started. Since the date of step 5 is 'to be determined'.
> So that's a good reason why i'm actively working on the alternative(s) :-)
> ...
> To get back on topic, I'll get back to this list once i have the
> rules.txt/.pl script and shp/.osm files available of the MLI park
> boundary data, since many would like to see this data on the various
> map APIs.
>
> cheers,
> Sam
>
>
> p.s. i'll probably be done it before step 5 roles around :-)
>
> On 3/26/11, Samuel Dyck<samueldyck at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I see, my bad. I'm just a little frustrated about the lack of
>> communication. I should say that I have already accepted the new terms
>> (sorry Sam).
>>
>> On 11-03-26 11:48 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>> On 26/03/11 16:42, Samuel Dyck wrote:
>>>
>>>> "*Decline*. You do not agree to the new OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms
>>>> and, specifically, you refuse to re-license your existing contributions
>>>> for use under the ODbL. (TODO: add more on what this means)." Here.
>>>> <http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think that's just out of date, like so much in the wiki. New users
>>> signing up are sent to a different wiki page when they decline:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributor_Terms_Declined
>>>
>>>> Stage 3 is is very late, and no reason is given as to why.
>>> I believe the main reason is because of the ongoing attempt to improve
>>> the contributor terms to deal with various issues which people raised
>>> with them. Unfortunately reworking them takes time because of the need
>>> to keep passing each draft over to the lawyers for review.
>>>
>>>> As for the update, why is it not monitored?
>>> I don't know - maybe the board has established a Community Monitoring
>>> Group yet? Maybe you should suggest it to them?
>>>
>>> You seem to have me confused with somebody in authority ;-)
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>
>