Am 16.12.2017 um 18:40 schrieb Johannes Singler:

Hallo

Am 16.12.2017 um 15:00 schrieb Simon Poole:

...

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.

Sind das nicht eher 200'000 mehr?

War im Stress :-/ und hab aus versehen mit der Auswertung von Mitte Jahr verglichen. Sorry. 200'000 stimmt natürlich.

...

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)

Ich darf anmerken, dass der Import in Basel-Stadt 3000 neue Adressen gebracht hat, die Abdeckung ist dort damit bei 98%.

Ja, und ~100'000 zusätzlich ist ungefähr das, was wir die letzten paar Jahre im Schnitt gesehen haben, also normal und nicht enttäuschend.

Simon

Gruss, Johannes _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

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 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" version 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)

• the 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

feedback from manual verification in a village containing ~1000 addresses :

only one is located at the entrance, so it's unable to use it to mark entrance.

more than 90% of the localisation are located inside the true building outline.

~5% are outside the outline. However, it is often possible to find the building by geographical proximity.

~5% of the building outline are missing in osm, I haven't checked the localisation accuracy with satellite imagery.

4 localisations inside a outline are erroneous : - a swap of address between 2 building. I checked on the ground and asked a inhabitant, the sign on the ground is correct, gwr is wrong. - 2 are located on the outline of a building of the neighbour that sometimes does not have an address (for example, a garage)

a few addresses are duplicate. I have to check if it's duplicate in the original file or if it's a handling error on my part.

some correspond to buildings whose construction has not yet begun or just begun.

some localisation are located on virgin area without any construction project visible on the ground.

2 localisation are totally erroneous (one is located at 100m from the building, the other is 300m far away and in a wrong street)

I therefore think that the data is imperfect but very useful (about 1% error and 5% data to be reworked). However, the quality of the data may vary greatly from one municipality to another, since each municipality seems to have the freedom of method and persons in charge of measurements. let's wait to know what the licence will allow, even if in this village, survey for the building numbers is almost finished. but even in these cases, an integration with osmosis could easily detect new or missing address.

Le 21. 12. 17 à 10:01, Simon Poole a écrit :

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 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

Hi

I don't think there are specific plans yet. See Simons remark about finishing Bern first. In my opinion, a first step would be a nice comparison map. For example showing missing addresses or deviations. That would give us a better feeling for the data. It would also help local mappers to improve on coverage. We will get the best results when we can help and encourage local mappers to do addresses.

Michael

On 31/12/17 22:09, Toggenburger Lukas wrote:

Hello Simon

Are there already plans/ideas on how we would import the GWR addresses without having duplicates from already existing addresses, etc? What options do we have?

I offer my programming skills to help.

Es guets neus!

Lukas _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

On 31/12/17 22:09, Toggenburger Lukas wrote:

Hello Simon

Are there already plans/ideas on how we would import the GWR addresses without having duplicates from already existing addresses, etc? What options do we have?

I offer my programming skills to help.

For similar future tasks I'm evaluating https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Conflator which consists 1. of a command line tool "OSM Conflator", 2. a webtool "cf_audit" and uses finally (3.) JOSM too. Here's a demo of the OSM Audit tool http://audit.osmz.ru/project/demo .

OSM Audit has some properties like MapRoulette but can handle more complex tasks. OSM Conflator and OSM Audit tool seem to be constrained to point objects. But this would be is sufficient for addresses on nodes.

2018-01-02 1:06 GMT+01:00 marc marc marc_marc_irc@hotmail.com:

does anyone have any idea how long that would take at the current rate ?

No idea. But usually rates are slowing down until reaching infinity :-) This is at least what I observe currently by looking at my MapRoulette Challenge of Missing Crosswalks (p.ex, of "Bern in Switzerland": http://maproulette.org/map/1416/1235343 )...

:Stefan

2018-01-02 1:06 GMT+01:00 marc marc marc_marc_irc@hotmail.com:

The licence isn't clear enought to make a import right now. But to use it, several tools can be used :

• I'm trying conflator pluging in josm (manuel check that everbody can

do right now). I export missing to a .osm file to use it in the next tools.

• create a umap with the previous .osm file.

I 'll use it as a tips to make a survey.

when the licence 'll be ok, I think we need to use 2 tools :

• create a import for all addr that are inside a building outline only

if the building have only one addr from gwr and only if the building doesn't have any addr tag on or in the outline

• use osmose to show addr that failed to be imported.

vespucci editor can show osmose alert by proximity. so everbody can check on site building that need to be splited or create entrance or assign addr to correct building or put error in "false".

In addition to this, the import of building outline for the canton of Bern should be continued. does anyone have any idea how long that would take at the current rate ?

Le 01. 01. 18 à 22:36, michael spreng a écrit :

...

Hi

I don't think there are specific plans yet. See Simons remark about finishing Bern first. In my opinion, a first step would be a nice comparison map. For example showing missing addresses or deviations. That would give us a better feeling for the data. It would also help local mappers to improve on coverage. We will get the best results when we can help and encourage local mappers to do addresses.

Michael

On 31/12/17 22:09, Toggenburger Lukas wrote:

...

Hello Simon

Are there already plans/ideas on how we would import the GWR addresses without having duplicates from already existing addresses, etc? What options do we have?

I offer my programming skills to help.

Es guets neus!

Lukas _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list 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

---

talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

2018-01-30 10:46 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole 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:

@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 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

-- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.

---

talk-ch mailing list 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

---

talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

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:

...

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:

...

@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 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

Thanks for keeping the topic warm. - Good luck!

Simon Poole 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 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 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 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 yethttp://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 listtalk-ch@openstreetmap.chhttp://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

---

talk-ch mailing listtalk-ch@openstreetmap.chhttp://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

---

talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

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 http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

---

talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

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:

1. Conflation: Merge von Daten aus Layern

2. utilsplugin2: Gebäude mit Linie und Alt-X teilen

3. Terracer: mit Shift-T in n-Teile teilen

4. ToDo-List: Offene Split's "by the merge" markieren

Simon Poole <simon@poole.ch mailto:simon@poole.ch> schrieb am Do.,

1. 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

Am 30.03.2018 um 17:06 schrieb Johannes Singler:

Hallo

Am 01.03.2018 um 20:08 schrieb Simon Poole:

...

AFAIK (and that is fairly far :-)) it is 1 guy.

But yes I've planned on doing that,

Ich habe den Eindruck dass inzwischen die Adresslisten der Schweiz in RegioOSM (alle?) durch die des GWR ersetzt wurden.

Ja, das ist so.

Basel-Stadt hat das leider nicht gut getan.  Wegen unterschiedlicher Interpunktion ist die gemessene Abdeckung von 100% auf <95% gefallen, siehe http://regio-osm.de/hausnummerauswertung/auswertung_anzeigen?job_ids=22827&ausgabefarbig=true&linktyp=osmkartevoll&unterdrueckfertigestrassen=nein&unterdrueckspalten=nein&land=Schweiz&stadt=Basel

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Switzerland:Basel-Stadt#Unterschiedliche_Schreibweisen

und http://qa.poole.ch/ch-roads/BS/2701.html

Die GWR Daten haben ihre Probleme (bekannt), aber imho von Dietmar zu verlangen, dass es jetzt alles aufteilt in Kantone mit und ohne eigene Daten (in einigen dürften die wiederum mit den GWR Daten übereinstimmen in anderen nicht), ist schon etwas viel verlangt.

Ausserdem scheinen kleinere Häuschen wie in Familiengärten nicht in GWR verzeichnet zu sein, was vor allem in Riehen und Bettingen einen grossen Unterschied macht: http://regio-osm.de/hausnummerauswertung/auswertung_anzeigen?job_ids=22829&ausgabefarbig=true&linktyp=osmkartevoll&unterdrueckfertigestrassen=nein&unterdrueckspalten=nein&land=Schweiz&stadt=Riehen

http://regio-osm.de/hausnummerauswertung/auswertung_anzeigen?job_ids=22828&ausgabefarbig=true&linktyp=osmkartevoll&unterdrueckfertigestrassen=nein&unterdrueckspalten=nein&land=Schweiz&stadt=Bettingen

In manchen Kantonen ist es so, in anderen anders. Siehe oben.

Die GWR-Daten widersprechen in der Schreibweise den Strassenschildern, weswegen die kantonalen Daten zu bevorzugen sind, denke ich. *Wenn niemand was dagegen hat, werde ich den RegioOSM-Maintainer bitten, für Basel-Stadt wieder die (neuesten) kantonalen Daten einzupflegen.*

Das ist ein altbekanntes Problem, deshalb hab ich immer vorgeschlagen (siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_-_GWR_Street_and_Place_Names_Compari...) abweichende GWR Namen in official_name zu taggen. Das Problem wird noch schlimmer werden wenn die "behördenverbindliche" Strassen- und Adresslisten aus dem GWR von swisstopo veröffentlicht werden.  Siehe oben.

Ausserdem ist bei den Adressdaten in RegioOSM jetzt Copyright: xxZZrr angegeben.  Dieser Platzhalter sollte noch durch was Besseres ersetzt werden, oder?

Gruss, Johannes

Das ist tatsächlich falsch.

Simon

IMHO müsste man Dietmar davon überzeugen, official_name und alt_name and den Strassen auszuwerten (das ist ja auch das Problem).

Simon

Am 31.03.2018 um 08:47 schrieb Johannes Singler:

Hallo

...

...

Die GWR-Daten widersprechen in der Schreibweise den Strassenschildern, weswegen die kantonalen Daten zu bevorzugen sind, denke ich. *Wenn niemand was dagegen hat, werde ich den RegioOSM-Maintainer bitten, für Basel-Stadt wieder die (neuesten) kantonalen Daten einzupflegen.*

Das ist ein altbekanntes Problem, deshalb hab ich immer vorgeschlagen (siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_-_GWR_Street_and_Place_Names_Compari...)

abweichende GWR Namen in official_name zu taggen. Das Problem wird noch schlimmer werden wenn die "behördenverbindliche" Strassen- und Adresslisten aus dem GWR von swisstopo veröffentlicht werden.  Siehe oben.

Das wäre dann aber eben nicht nur für die Strassenabschnitte, sondern für tausende betroffene Adressen.  Wie trage ist es da ein? addr:official_street?  Diesen Key gibt es exakt ein Mal bisher weltweit.  addr:alt_street auch nur ca. 100 Mal.  Und beide scheinen von RegioOSM nicht interpretiert zu werden. Also, wie können wir RegioOSM funktional halten, mit den GWR-Adressen?

Johannes

I've now received an attribution text  for the contributors page, which I assume is supposed to indicate that yes, attributing there is OK.

Assuming that we will be using the data in one way or the other, I will be adding the data and creating a wiki page for it later today.

Simon

Am 28.02.2018 um 19:13 schrieb Simon Poole:

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:

...

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:

...

@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 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

---

talk-ch mailing list 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

So, I've got around to documenting everything a bit, and have regenerated the per municipality extracts available here http://qa.poole.ch/addresses/GWR/ fixing the UTF-8 issue in the OSM files and adding geojson variants.

Simon

Am 06.03.2018 um 20:50 schrieb Olivier Chatelain:

Great, thank you Simon.

Simon Poole <simon@poole.ch mailto:simon@poole.ch> schrieb am Di., 6. März 2018 um 16:56 Uhr:

I've now received an attribution text  for the contributors page,
which I assume is supposed to indicate that yes, attributing there
is OK.

Assuming that we will be using the data in one way or the other, I
will be adding the data and creating a wiki page for it later today.

Simon


Am 28.02.2018 um 19:13 schrieb Simon Poole:

...

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 http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch