AFAIK (and that is fairly far :-)) it is 1 guy.
But yes I've planned on doing that, the focus up to now has simply been on trying to get the terms of use issue fixed.
Note: just as in Berne I expect the canton Zürich data to be "better", well at least slightly different, than the GWR that has a different origin.
Simon
Am 01.03.2018 um 14:13 schrieb Olivier Chatelain:
Q:
- Will you talk to the guys of "Regio-Osm" to integrate the data?
===
Still working hard for Bern, my recommendations:
Map Style
- Colored Streets
Plugins:
Conflation: Merge von Daten aus Layern
utilsplugin2: Gebäude mit Linie und Alt-X teilen
Terracer: mit Shift-T in n-Teile teilen
ToDo-List: Offene Split's "by the merge" markieren
Simon Poole <simon@poole.ch mailto:simon@poole.ch> schrieb am Do.,
März 2018 um 12:37 Uhr:
And just in case you didn't have enough of me posting on this topic :-)
The current address counts on a per canton base: http://qa.poole.ch/addresses/ch_canton would seem to indicate that we are noe over 50% for Berne.
Simon
Am 28.02.2018 um 23:49 schrieb Simon Poole:
BTW since the beginning of 2018 all the address data in the Kanton Zürich is available on a CC0 licence which from a pure legal pov is un-problematic (IMHO we should complete the Canton Berne before we overreach by trying to do too many things at the same time). Simon On 28.02.2018 20:59, Olivier Chatelain wrote:Thanks for keeping the topic warm. - Good luck! Simon Poole <simon@poole.ch <mailto:simon@poole.ch>> schrieb am Mi., 28. Feb. 2018 um 19:13 Uhr: Short update: the BfS has now changed the text distributed for the third time since release (in December), it now includes an attribution requirement that previously wasn't there. As you may know we can't offer downstream attribution in OSM and I've asked the BfS if they could agree to attribution on the wiki page as I've already mentioned.previously I don't expect an answer before the 2nd week of March, so we will just have to wait a bit more. Simon On 30.01.2018 21:49, Simon Poole wrote:Wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors The disclaimer is semi-nonsense and just restates on the base of which ordinance they are making the data available at all (it is not as if they were not allowed to define ToU for data of access type A, that's is what swisstopo has done for years, and you wouldn't say that swisstopo has been breaking the law all the time, or would you? :-)) , I would take it essentially as do what you like with it. probably when the "official" dataset from swisstopo becomes available it will be on different terms. Simon Am 30.01.2018 um 18:34 schrieb marc marc:Simon which wiki page are you talking about? I didn't understand what the Disclaimer meant to an osm contributor. For postal codes and cities, I think we should also ask ourselves how we want to use them. do we want to duplicate them everywhere on all objects? the best way would be to use this data to build the missing boundary. Le 30. 01. 18 à 18:30, Stefan Keller a écrit :2018-01-30 10:46 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole <simon@poole.ch> <mailto:simon@poole.ch>:> The main question is if we should do something with the PLZ6 digits or just forget about them. But you keep the PLZ4? Since Nominatim recently supports them even better [1].
:Stefan [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lonvia/diary/43143 2018-01-30 10:46 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole <simon@poole.ch> <mailto:simon@poole.ch>:> @All I've tried to pry something more concrete on the usage terms from our > contact at the BfS, however this has proven to be more difficult than I > assumed (or maybe not). In any case the text that is currently pointed to is > > Disclaimer DE > Gemäss Art. 16 der Verordnung über das eidgenössische Gebäude- und > Wohnungsregister vom 1. Juli 2017 (VGWR; SR 431.841) veröffentlicht das BFS > die Daten der Berechtigungsstufen A im Internet. Die Bereitstellung der > Strassen und der Gebäudeadressen (beide Stufe A) erfolgt gemäss Art. 26a und > 26c der Verordnung über die geografischen Namen vom 21. Mai 2008 (GeoNV; SR > 510.625) durch swisstopo. Das BFS teilt swisstopo die Daten und periodisch > alle Änderungen mit (Art. 26a Abs. 3 und 26c Abs. 2 GeoNV). > > Die amtlichen Verzeichnisse der Strassen (Art. 26a GeoNV) und der > Gebäudeadressen (Art. 26c GeoNV) werden aktuell vorbereitet und treten > schrittweise bis spätestens 1. Juli 2021 in Kraft (Art. 37a GeoNV). > > Um den Zugang zu diesen Daten auch während der Übergangszeit zu ermöglichen, > kümmert sich das BFS um eine Zwischenlösung. Es ist ein Zugriff auf die > Daten in Listenform möglich, wobei die Bereitstellung grundsätzlich gemäss > Art. 26a und 26b GeoNV erfolgt. Diese Listen sind für die Behörden > unverbindlich. Nur die von swisstopo erstellten und in Betrieb genommenen > amtlichen Verzeichnisse der Strassen und Gebäudeadressen sind > behördenverbindlich > > There have been some hints that we should provide attribution which I would > suggest we do, as customary, on the Contributors wiki page. > > Further note: I've included GWR extracts in OSM format as described below: > > http://qa.poole.ch/addresses/GWR/n.osm.zip > > The main question is if we should do something with the PLZ6 digits or just > forget about them. > > SImon > > > > Am 21.12.2017 um 10:01 schrieb Simon Poole: > > > I've re-projected the data and split it up in to municipalities, you can get > the zipped ESRI shapefile from > > http://qa.poole.ch/addresses/GWR/n.zip > > by replacing n with the BfS municipality number. > > Notes: > a) as already said the use terms are not quite clear right now, and likely > won't be before Christmas, but obviously you can familiarize yourself with > the data now. Quality seems to vary a bit, in principle the nodes should be > where the entrances are, but obviously in many cases that is only very rough > b) what we want to do with the data in the end is unclear, and likely this > will have to be decided on canton by canton > c) if we decide to import the data we need to follow the import process > d) we are already importing the address data from the Canton of Berne, and > it would likely be helpful to finish that off before embarking on any thing > new > > Simon > > Am 19.12.2017 um 18:19 schrieb Simon Poole: > > I had contact with the BfS yesterday and clear terms of use should be > forthcoming. > > If I get around to it before Christmas, I'll see if I can produce a version > of the data re-projected to WGS84 coordinates. > > Simon > > > > On 16. Dezember 2017 15:00:14 MEZ, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch mailto:simon@poole.ch wrote: >> I was originally going to remind everybody, particularly those resident >> in the canton Berne, that we have an ongoing project to import addresses >> and trace buildings that is not complete yet >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canton_of_Bern_Address_Import and >> then I was going to point out that besides the addresses from the canton >> of Zürich that will become available at the beginning of January, that >> from our correspondence with the BfS we would be expecting the first >> address data from the GWR to be available for download in the next >> quarter too. >> >> However yesterday we were a bit surprised by the announcement that data >> from the GWR would become available immediately in a provisional form >> (this is what we had actually been actually asking the BfS to do, as >> there is no clear reason to wait till the "official" v! >> ersion >> is prepared >> by swisstopo, however they hadn't responded in a positive way). >> >> The downside is that, beside swisstopo and the BfS creating the >> impression of a not really well thought out, rather uncoordinated >> effort, it is currently not clear what the actual licence/use conditions >> are (there are lots of links being sent around which lead to >> conflicting, sometimes year old information). We'll see if we can >> clarify this next week. >> >> I've generated a short comparison of where we are in OSM currently vs. >> the GWR data: http://qa.poole.ch/addresses/ch_canton >> >> Noteworthy points: >> >> - last year roughly end of the year we had 667'807 addresses vs. >> 868'960 now, an increase of a good 120'000. Most of this is due to >> Berne increasing from 88'817 to 190'243 (actually the very small >> increase in the other cantons is slightly disappointing) >> - th! >> e weak >> cantons are those that we expected >> - the GWR numbers are lower than those in the available cantonal >> datasets mainly due to a more restrictive definition of what an address >> is. >> >> As soon as we've clarified the licence situation, we can have a look >> what the best way will be to utilize the data one way or another. >> >> Simon
_______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch <mailto:talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch_______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch <mailto:talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch_______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch <mailto:talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch <mailto:talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch_______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch <mailto:talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch_______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch <mailto:talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch