[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[Alan Richards]

Exactly. Local governments are using this license presumably because the
federal government has gone to the work of creating it. The intention of
all these bodies is to release the data for public use, the license is to
cover them from lawsuits.

In New West in fact, they are having an innovation week and hackathon in
February with the goal of hacking together interesting projects around the
Open Data the city releases. Sadly at the moment it seems I can't use this
data for OSM without getting explicit permission from the city.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:54 PM, James <james2432 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The only differences I could see is with the province of quebec (OGL-QC),
> but they publish their data under CC-BY 4.0 so we just need to ask for
> their approval to mark refs on contributors page (indirect reference which
> CC-BY requires)
>
> I think it would be logical for other provinces(excluding Quebec, because
> they do their own thing) to follow what the federal goverment has put in
> place in terms of open data. Obviously they need to replace federal with
> municipal, but this shouldnt change the license in itself that allows us to
> copy, create, distribute and derive.
>
> If cities are putting their data on public portals it's obviously so the
> public will use it, instead of it sitting there doing nothing.
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2017 3:30 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm under the impression that we are talking about two things.
>>
>> The first is the Open Data licence which I think we are agreed is roughly
>> the same except that BC governments reference the BC privacy law, the
>> Ontario ones the Ontario privacy law and the Federal Government references
>> the Federal Government privacy law which is what you might expect.
>>
>> The differences to me are minor.
>>
>> The second is Paul's letter from a Federal Government civil servant that
>> I shall call a letter of interpretation, and it's this letter that makes
>> Paul very comfortable with the Federal Government Open Data.
>>
>> Unfortunately we have been talking licence so the assumption was made
>> that the BC government /Vancouver Open Data licence was also acceptable and
>> my understanding is some data has been imported and accepted.
>>
>> I do not believe the differences between the BC and Ontario privacy laws
>> are that great that one is acceptable and one is not.
>>
>> If all the Canadian Open Data licences are deemed to be unacceptable what
>> do we do about the data that has been imported?  This includes the CANVEC
>> data.
>>
>> My interest is in the Ottawa Bus stops and I have been working with the
>> City of Ottawa for some years to make them available off line on a tablet /
>> phone.  Somewhere in the City of Ottawa's official web site is a link to
>> this work.  My concern is what will tomorrow bring.  Based on the
>> discussions in talk-ca and on the work done analyzing the Federal
>> Government's Open Data licence before the Metro link address import my
>> impression was we had accepted the Canadian version of the Open Data
>> licence.  These Ottawa Bus stops are now based on OSM data and have been
>> since the discussion on talk-ca last year.
>>
>> Are we seriously saying the data that Metrolink imported should now be
>> removed?
>>
>> The uncertainty, the on / off on acceptence of the Open Data side of
>> things does make life difficult.  Should we be using a different platform
>> for Open Data?
>>
>> If I sidetrack to the Ottawa import process essentially the building
>> outlines are brought into a JOSM layer then using the Bing image layer to
>> confirm they are brought into OSM manually.  My understanding is any
>> building outlines that clash with an existing building in OSM daily dump
>> have been removed from the import file.  Any added in the previous 24 hours
>> can be handled by the manual process.  This is quite different to an
>> earlier import.
>>
>> Thoughts and clarification please.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 25 Jan 2017 2:43 pm, "Alan Richards" <alarobric at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Most BC cities seem to be using a version of the OGL-BC now as well.
>>> This is similar to the OGL-CA with references to BC privacy and FOI laws,
>>> similar to the Ontario changes mentioned earlier.
>>>
>>> This business of having to get explicit permission for each dataset from
>>> each government entity is a bit ridiculous when the intent of this license
>>> in the first place was to avoid this.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Blake Girardot <bgirardot at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on
>>>> top of
>>>> > the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
>>>> incompatible.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> The above sounds like an interpretation of the answer, not the actual
>>>> answer itself.
>>>>
>>>> Could you share the actual inquiry and response so we can all learn
>>>> from it and understand how it requires additional obligations?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> blake
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>> Blake Girardot
>>>> HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot
>>>> skype: jblakegirardot
>>>> Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20170125/ec9214cf/attachment-0001.html>