[Talk-ca] Talk-ca: Bulk Import of Address Range in GTHA from Metrolinx, Second attemps

Stewart C. Russell scruss at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 12:16:01 UTC 2016

Hi Mojgan,

Thanks for sticking with us! And also for including the sample data as
an attachment.

One observation: Statistics Canada does not use the Open Government
Canada Licence (or even a derivation of it), but its own:

Although OSM has used previous road network information before, it
appears (to me) that this StatsCan licence is different from the one
reviewed for the 2009 import. It has some prescriptive terms that may
make its use incompatible with OSM. For instance:

	[you shall] not merge or link the Information with any other
	databases for the purpose of attempting to identify an
	individual person, business or organization

I read this that you can't use StatsCan data as part of a larger
geocoding database, which is one of OSM's uses.

I see that the Triplinx source has been added to the OSM Contributors
page, too.

> At a high level, our process of identifying gaps in the address ranges
> is summarized below:
> ·         For each side of each StatCan road segment with a valid
> address range (start value and end value exist and are different):

Can you confirm, please: you're checking StatsCan address ranges against
**OSM** street segments? StatsCan (and any government data) cannot
automatically be assumed to be more correct than OSM data, and we
sometimes have to adjust imported data to match air photos or foot surveys.

For consistency, address range segments need to be parallel to OSM
street segments.

In addition, please consider:

* not adding very short address ranges. There were a few in my
neighbourhood that appeared to be only two houses long. Address points
would be better for those.

* that every set of address range end nodes has an address range way
associated with it. Again, there were several sets of range nodes with
no range ways associated with them near me.

> *Benefit To The Community:*
> … From our perspective, adding address data for
> areas/streets that don’t have this data is a step in the right direction.

I'd absolutely agree, and apologize if I appeared to suggest otherwise.

Best Wishes,

More information about the Talk-ca mailing list