Add Canada Ontario 2018-2022 orthoimagery

[galen8183]

Add GEospatial Ontario's (GEO's) 2018-2022 orthophotography WMS service from
https://geohub.lio.gov.on.ca/maps/lio::geospatial-ontario-imagery-data-services/about

Licensed under the OGL Ontario,
a license approved by the OSMF LWG

Obsoletes #2342

Signed-off-by: Galen CC galen8183@gmail.com

[arch0345]

Thanks for your first contribution to ELI! I've gone ahead and specified layers for this endpoint as unfortunately wms_endpoint and wmts sources can't be processed by some editors such as iD/Rapid

[galen8183]

Gotcha, I'll keep that in mind for the future :-) thanks!

[cicku]

@arch0345 reverted, I'm not sure why you merged this without my approval.

@galen8183

1. no need to specify port 443
2. Is it possible to set license to a LRC URL rather than the osm wiki page

[galen8183]

1. Not sure why arch added that GetCapabilities returns the URL with port 443 included, will remove
2. I modelled this entry off of CityofTorontoImageryLatest, which links to the same OSMF page -- should this instead link to the same licence URL as in the attribution entry, or somewhere else?

[cicku]

We should use the official web page from the hosting/vendor. OSMF page is for clarification, there is no guarantee that the resource (tiles) will have "a license", unless it is clearly mentioned in the official website.

https://geohub.lio.gov.on.ca/maps/lio::geospatial-ontario-imagery-data-services/about has the link to https://www.ontario.ca/page/open-government-licence-ontario, so you should use it.

[andrewharvey]

@arch0345 reverted, I'm not sure why you merged this without my approval.

As far as I know we don't have any documentation or policy for maintainers to follow. We should have something.

• Can maintainers approve and merge their own PRs? Immediately or only after X time has passed without comment. I'd say yes, but for anything non-trivial preferable to provide some time period, even just 24 hours I think is okay for others to review and provide feedback.
• How many approvals are needed before a PR can be merged? To reduce maintenance burden and blockages, I'd say no more than 1.
• Should we have something like code authors, where maintainers more attached or knowledgeable to specific regions can be assigned to review changes within their regions?

I'm not the PR was open for 3 weeks without any comment so after @arch0345 reviewed I think they were okay to merge.

[cicku]

Documentation is one thing, etiquette is something different.

Can maintainers approve and merge their own PRs?

Yes, but highly not recommended. If you have push access why would you still open a PR, because you expect others to review.

How many approvals are needed before a PR can be merged?

Should we have something like code authors

We can.

PR was open for 3 weeks without any comment so after

That's not the case. I assigned myself to review this when the PR was actively modified back and forth, then it was merged suddenly without my review. In fact, the PR has/had issues yet to be addressed. If I assign myself to an active PR then it pretty much indicates that I will work on it.

[arch0345]

At least in my experience, there have been several instances where prs that have been supposedly assigned go unreviewed for months. This can be discouraging, especially for new contributors, so after a few days passed I took it upon myself to review this PR. I do acknowledge that I could have asked about what reservations you had in regards to why this shouldn't have been merged, which I will do going forward.

IMO I don't think the issues raised warranted a full on reversion given the points made (port referenced in GetCapabilities, ambiguity of what should be the license_url), but I digress.

[andrewharvey]

That's not the case. I assigned myself to review this when the PR was actively modified back and forth, then it was merged suddenly without my review.

Sorry, you're right, it was merged the day after you self assigned, I thought it was only after a few weeks.