Belgium Cadastral Map

[Klumbumbus]

Please add the following properties to the new source:

• permission-ref
• attribution-url
• attribution-text
• shape (much likely you can reuse one of the existing shapes)

Without a proper permission-ref we must remove it!

[jbelien]

According to what is available in the GetCapabilities (see hereunder), I'm not sure we can use the WMS service.

More information in Dutch and French : ​https://finances.belgium.be/fr/experts_partenaires/plan-cadastral

Though, the data are also available for download (in ShapeFile) and those could (I think) be used for OSM. Here is the email written by Joost Schouppe (one of our Board Member) about it on talk-be : ​https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2018-August/010539.html

---

​http://ccff02.minfin.fgov.be/geoservices/arcgis/services/WMS/Cadastral_Layers/MapServer/WMSServer?SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetCapabilities

Access is free, but implies to read and accept the following conditions and notices:

1. Responsibility. The FPS Finance is not responsible for any inaccuracy, lack of update or temporary interruption of displayed information.

• The General Administration of Patrimonial Documentation is not responsible for possible damage that the user or third parties could have after or because of the use of these data.
• The General Administration of Patrimonial Documentation does not guarantee the legal nor real conformity of the data. The user determines himself the value that he gives to these data.
• Although the data have been collected with utmost care, there may be mistakes in these data.
• If the user notices mistakes in the data, he/she must forward them to the General Administration of Patrimonial Documentation in order to improve the data. The possible mistakes can only be corrected by the General Administration of Patrimonial Documentation.

2. Right to consultation. The whole CadGIS service is subject to the Belgian and international law as regards the copyright and the intellectual property mentioned in the law of June 30th 1994 as regards the copyright, related rights and the law as regards the databases, especially the Law of August 31st 1998 transposing into the Belgian Law the European directive of March 11th 1996 as regards the legal protection of databases.

• When data are printed, the following copyright text must be mentioned: "© (date) General Administration of the Patrimonial Documentation.".
• Printed data cannot in any case replace an extract of the cadastral parcel plan. Only the General Administration of the Patrimonial Documentation can provide these documents.
• The user has no right neither to trade nor to publish on Internet - directly or not - data in any form without the prior written permission of the Patrimonial Documentation.
• Use of data must observe the principles of purpose and proportionality.

3. Protection of privacy. Data cannot be related to personal or fiscal data from other databases in such a way that abuse as regards the right to privacy for owners or to secrecy imposed by taxation law may be possible. However, in the case where personal data are put at disposal of the user, he/she is has to deal with these data pursuant to the provisions of the law of December 8th 1992 as regards the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of private data and the Directive 95/46/EC of October 24th 1995 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

4. Disputes. The CadGIS service is subject to the Belgian law and to the competence of the Belgian courts.

5. Right to interruption and modification of the service. The FPS Finance reserves the right to interrupt the CadGIS service and without prior notice, to change the design, the content as well the general conditions of use.

[A_Pirard]

Hi,

I have a problem with your request.
The cadastral data was already browsable before (Web application and CMS).
It was recently made available as Open Data under the Creative Commons as written here
​https://finances.belgium.be/fr/particuliers/habitation/revenu_cadastral/plan-cadastral
but the License itself is contained in each of the mentioned files, downloadable per municipality.
All derivative works are allowed, even making the same WMS server.
The shift to Open attribute of the data was also announced here
​https://www.belgium.be/fr/actualites/2018/le_plan_cadastral_desormais_disponible_en_open_source
as well as by the major Newspapers.
So, which URL and other info do you prefer?

I mentioned before that the normal place for the terms is the WMS metadata (Getcapabilities)
and that JOSM should display them the first time they're used or when they change.
But JOSM refused to do that, they must be scattered everywhere.
(Hence) The authors probably forgot to update the metadata after the shift to Open status.
But we're not going to ask them to update the information that JOSM doesn't want its users to read, are we?

Note that that this data is soooo imprecise that it is unsuitable either for OSM import or tracing.
It can only be used to see confirmation of other maps and for small complements, as if using the Cadastral Web Browser, only more comfortably.
Most importantly, the user should be warned of NOT TRACING IT.
HOW can OSM and JOSM do that warning?

Also, if JOSM requires what you ask, shouldn't it be indicated in a comment at the top of the Belgium file?
Including a definition of the terms (properties) you mention.

TIA.

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to A_Pirard:

The cadastral data was already browsable before (Web application and CMS).

This doesn't say anything about the specific license or if the data can be used in OSM.

It was recently made available as Open Data under the Creative Commons as written here
​https://finances.belgium.be/fr/particuliers/habitation/revenu_cadastral/plan-cadastral

I can't find anything about the specific license or if the data can be used in OSM there too.

but the License itself is contained in each of the mentioned files, downloadable per municipality.

In the GetCapabilities from comment:2 we can read

The user has no right neither to trade nor to publish on Internet - directly or not - data in any form without the prior written permission of the Patrimonial Documentation.

From my understanding, this explizit permission is not yet referenced here.

All derivative works are allowed, even making the same WMS server.

Why do you think that's the way it is?

The shift to Open attribute of the data was also announced here
​https://www.belgium.be/fr/actualites/2018/le_plan_cadastral_desormais_disponible_en_open_source
as well as by the major Newspapers.

I can't find anything about the specific license or if the data can be used in OSM there too.

So, which URL and other info do you prefer?

One with an conclusive permission to use the data in OSM (explizit or implizit).

I mentioned before that the normal place for the terms is the WMS metadata (Getcapabilities)
and that JOSM should display them the first time they're used or when they change.

Which ticket is this? (And thats not possible for TMS sources.)

Most importantly, the user should be warned of NOT TRACING IT.
HOW can OSM and JOSM do that warning?

I would say only by not adding it to the default list. The users expect that they can use the layers which are presented to them by default.

Also, if JOSM requires what you ask, shouldn't it be indicated in a comment at the top of the Belgium file?
Including a definition of the terms (properties) you mention.

All documentation, explanation and the request to add a permission-ref is at wiki:/Maps You can add a link to this page at the Belgium subpage if you want.

[A_Pirard]

Hi,

I did my best to fulfill your requirements.

I'm not going to reply to your points line by line because they do not reply to what I wrote:
(1) that this data recently changed to "Open Data under the Creative Commons" (mentioned URL)
(2) that the new License terms are in each of the files the URL mentions, downloadable per municipality.
(3) but that the WMS server existed before that change
(4) and that they obviously forgot to update the terms in the WMS metadata

Obviously, vector data that can be downloaded as import can also be traced from WMS.
I dont understand why you say that (3) is not a proof that WMS can be used. Did I say that ???
And you analyze the terms of mistaken (4) instead of (2). Partim:
... le SPF Finances vous autorise à exercer pour le monde entier, à titre
gratuit, non sous-licenciable, non exclusif, les droits accordés par la présente
licence afin de :

1. reproduire et partager le plan cadastral, en tout ou partie ; et
2. produire, reproduire et partager l’Œuvre dérivée.

Please ask the owner to change the WMS metadata to your liking if you think that what you refuse to show to the user should be changed.

I have added to /Maps/Belgium a pointer to /Maps shorter than our discussion.
Unlike here above, that gotcha says that <name>, <type>, <url> and <id> are mandatory.
As often the case, I did not understand "The attribution text to be shown all the time on the map" because it says "the map" instead of which map or what. I looked at OSM.org and at the WMS layer, I saw no text and I can't think of any other place to look for it.

If you look at my tickets for one about displaying ©, you'll find #7415 (wontfix) Displaying Copyright.
It's my opinion that the copyright should be written once in the WMS metadata instead of once per OSM editor like JOSM.
But the #7415 (wontfix) answer says that JOSM refuses to show that © to the user.
It says that JOSM/Maps, ID/Maps, Potlatch/Maps, whatever/Maps, etc/Maps should all contain all the allowed permissions.
That's nonsense. And I know a number of accepted sources that are not even listed in JOSM.
Authors should write their consent once in the metadata and we should spend our time with mapping, not this sort of talk.
I read hereabove (outdated) WMS metadata trying to prove that we cannot use the cadastre and the #7415 (wontfix) answer says that the metadata cannot show that we can ("Well, JOSM cannot guess magically if a WMS is authorized for OSM or not. There is nothing in the WMS specification that says that. So somebody will always have to check if its use is allowed or not.")
It makes no sense to say that metadata can show that we cannot use the WMS server and on the other hand to say that it cannot show that we can.
I can't explain that obstinacy to say that we can't when it's obvious that we can. Look at the PICC story.

[stoecker]

It makes no sense to say that metadata can show that we cannot use the WMS server and on the other hand to say that it cannot show that we can.

There is no contradiction here. When there is no explicit permission to use data for OSM, then it cannot be used. When metadata contains an incompatible license and no other document contradicts it, then it cannot be used.

As the majority of WMS services have either no conditions, wrong conditions or conditions which prevent usage for OSM it still simply makes no sense to show that information. Explicit permissions are usually stored somewhere else. Sadly collecting valid layers is a manual task and what you suggest does not change the situation, except adding more complexity to it.

My conclusion of this discussion here is that in the current case no explicit permission exists. None of the links you provided convinced Klumbumbus that tracing from the data is allowed.

[Klumbumbus]

You sound very agressive and there is no reason for this. You added a new source to the JOSM list without a reference for the permission so I asked you to add the reference. Thats because we already had that case that someone added a source for which OSM had no permission and this was not noticed for a longer time.

Replying to A_Pirard:

(1) that this data recently changed to "Open Data under the Creative Commons" (mentioned URL)

"Open Data" and "Creative Commons" are just words, meaning nothing about any permissions. See ​osmwiki:Import/ODbL_Compatibility for all these "Open Data" licenses which are not compatible with the OSM license.

(2) that the new License terms are in each of the files the URL mentions, downloadable per municipality.
(3) but that the WMS server existed before that change
(4) and that they obviously forgot to update the terms in the WMS metadata

Obviously, vector data that can be downloaded as import can also be traced from WMS.
I dont understand why you say that (3) is not a proof that WMS can be used. Did I say that ???
And you analyze the terms of mistaken (4) instead of (2). Partim:
... le SPF Finances vous autorise à exercer pour le monde entier, à titre
gratuit, non sous-licenciable, non exclusif, les droits accordés par la présente
licence afin de :

1. reproduire et partager le plan cadastral, en tout ou partie ; et
2. produire, reproduire et partager l’Œuvre dérivée.

OK, I didn't understand until now that there are different license texts.
Looking at the license text in one of the zip files there are requirements for attribution:

Article 3 – Conditions d'utilisation de la présente Licence.
L’exercice des Droits accordés par la licence est expressément soumis aux conditions suivantes.
a. Attribution.
1. Si Vous partagez le plan cadastral (y compris sous une forme modifiée ou
d’oeuvre dérivée), Vous devez :''
...

It must be clarified if mentioning on the contributors page is enough to fulfill the requirements or not. Because thats the point why lots of sources are not allowed in OSM. (Because at applications which use OSM data there is no attribution to each specific source. The OSM license doesn't require this.)

Unlike here above, that gotcha says that <name>, <type>, <url> and <id> are mandatory.

It is written at the explanation of permission-ref: "Please always use this property when adding new entries so it is easier for others to review."

As often the case, I did not understand "The attribution text to be shown all the time on the map" because it says "the map"

I changed the wording and added a help link. wiki:Maps?action=diff&version=550

[A_Pirard]

I'm not aggressive at all. I'm just dead tired.
I had foreseen ½h to give a hand publishing like I always did the Cadastre map that has been announced as open data on OSM-talk-be.
And I'm now more that 6h in those intricacies.
I met no warning of the new rules and I was even the one (why me) to add a hint on /Belgium for the others.
I pointed out here that "<name>... <id>" mandatory list is incomplete if you ask for more and it will probably remain so.
I'm afraid I have other very important and urgent things to do.

In my stupid mind, if the danger is that the map owner could complain, then if the owner says he won't then there is no problem.
Because of the confusion that OSM also makes between "copy data" and "trace a map" BE people misunderstood the SPW terms for the PICC.
I asked the SPW if I understood their terms correctly and they replied an e-mail, said shortly, that "yes, as anybody, OSM contributors can trace (but not copy) the map to build their own Openstreetmap and do whatever they want with it, even sell it". And even after my publishing that e-mail some vigilantes said that we can't use the PICC.
And my belief is that we were allowed to trace the PICC with JOSM to make a 20cm precision OSM since 2010. But the vigilantes kept repeating "we can't copy yet" until one noticed that "we don't copy, we trace". And that we could use PICC.
But, during 7 years, contributors used other sources and software and made a map with 3 to 5 m errors, bad building shapes, no house numbers, and even continue... It has to be redone entirely with precision. CONGRATULATIONS !!!

@stoker:
YES it's OBVIOUSLY contradictory to DISREGARD WMS metadata that allows usage and to REGARD WMS metadata that disallows usage as was done in this thread using outdated metadata.
Metadata terms have been designed to be read and contributors should be dispensed of knowing how to request a GetCapabilities.
No it's not appropriate to spend 6 more hours per other editor for this data if it's so simple to write the metadata once.
Metadata can also be displayed for other purposes.
If it DOES NOT contain terms, or not the terms you want, what to do is to ask the owner to add or change them to be correct and precise (e.g. allowing rivers but nothing else), not to throw the metadata away.
You say that "no explicit permission exists. None of the links you provided convinced Klumbumbus". I had shown the author's announcement page and Klumbumbus said that he didn't look at it completely.
FIY, here are the terms of their viewer: ​http://ccff02.minfin.fgov.be/useterm/cadgisintranet_useterm_FR.pdf

Opendata is just a word...: I didn't say it's terms, here is what ​https://statbel.fgov.be/fr/open-data thinks about it:
Les open data sont des données publiques à caractère non personnel, qui sont informatisées, répondent aux normes du format ouvert et peuvent être réutilisées gratuitement. Tout le monde peut utiliser gratuitement ces open data, à des fins aussi bien commerciales que non commerciales.
"réutilisées gratuitement" : "... no permissions"?

Do you agree that we can use that Cadastre now?
Please feel free to make any touch up that you want to what I did.
Please ask the owner to write up to date metadata and possible terms changes.
You know better than me what you want to ask.
But let me know.

Now I have a problem.
Must I really explain everything?

To do as you request, I created an OSM wiki text pointing to the terms file that I uploaded as
File:BE Cadastre opendata Licence plan FR.pdf
In a wiki link of the text, that filename did not display a link but the PDF text instead.
After nearly ½h trying to find what I did wrong, I concluded it was nothing. So I uploaded
File:BE_Cadastre_opendata_Licence_Plan_FR.pdf
and it instantly displayed a link correctly.
Now I received a message that the first file is a duplicate of the second one
and that the second one has been removed.

Must I really explain that before erasing a file its owner should be asked if it's OK?

And the second file is used by the text but it doesn't exist !

Must I really explain that of 2 identical files, of which one is used, the unused file should be erased?

Must I really explain everything?

I never could remember the syntax of the wiki ease command ;-)
Could you please fix that problem? TIA.

And thanks for what you're doing !!!

[Don-vip]

The rules are not new, are very simple to understand, and there's no need for so many discussions: we need explicit permission to use imagery for OSM mapping. Otherwise we must delete entries lacking this permission. Period.

[Klumbumbus]

@team: I'm on vacation until 16th septembre without or with very limited internet access, so don't expect any online activity from me during this time.

Regarding this ticket if "Open Data" is proper defined in Belgium then it's maybe enough, but for me the part with the attribution is not yet really solved (see comment:7). Would be great if someone else could evaluate this and decide. Maybe someone who speaks better french than me ;)

Bye Bye :)

[Don-vip]

Thanks for notice. I've asked support to OpenStreetMap Belgium on this case.

[A_Pirard]

Note: you=JOSM/OSM
You say that I write much and I think that too.
That's because you don't read what I write and I have to repeat and explain.
And because you keep repeating that if you will remove BE Cadastre if you don't agree with the terms.
So, why don't you simply say if you agree with those terms or not or what they should be?
Plus, you say that this very kind guy is aggressive.
And I complained that you erased the terms file I uploaded and you did not reply.
Same problem on the JOSM Belgian wiki.
It took 6 years to get the PICC working.
I helped everybody much. Not a single thank.
I don't want to repeat that experience.
So, I removed what I had put on this wiki and this ticket is closed.
Thanks for having listened.

[A_Pirard]

I forgot to say (write too much?) that it's better not to publish that WMS.
It is EXTREMELY imprecise and some contributors would not notice and trace it.
It's only interesting for some coordinate independent features that the others don't contain.