Russ, I might be missing something in regard to the data.
The data (shapefiles) at the link provided on the wiki seems to have already been partly converted, for example: * In the building data there are separate values for garages and sheds, while the wiki states that in the original data no such distinction existed and that they would be separated based upon area. * There are no "BLDG_TYPE=Tanks" in the building data as the wiki claims, but there are "BLDG_TYPE=yes", which the wiki says will be used to tag "Tanks." Note that since "yes" is also used for "Misc" buildings from the original data according to the wiki, the distinction between misc buildings and tanks is lost. I found examples of both storage tanks and non storage tanks in the data with "BLDG_TYPE=yes" * The building data has "BLDG_TYPE=hospital" while the wiki says the original data had only "BLDG_TYPE=medical" Mike On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Russell Deffner <russdeff...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mike, not at all; I’m taking notes and in the coming weeks we’ll get stuff > updated. The link to the DRCOG data is on the wiki, maybe you want to see > the converted? Chad can correct me if I’m wrong, but at the moment the > converted data is stored locally, maybe we can take a look if you do make > it tonight. Otherwise I’ll follow-up with you soon. > > =Russ > > > > *From:* Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:20 AM > *To:* Russell Deffner > *Cc:* Chad Hammond; Imports US > *Subject:* Re: [Imports-us] Denver Buildings Import Discussion > > > > Russ, Chad, > > > > Sorry if I jumped the gun. I don't think I will be able to make it > tonight, but if you provide a link to the original data I could do some > work, provide some - hopefully helpful - feedback, and with your OK, help > flush out the wiki page. > > > > Again, it is great to see this moving forward! > > > > Mike > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Russell Deffner <russdeff...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Mike and all, > > > > First, I should have probably started with, the wiki still needs work and > that’s part of what we’ll talk about tomorrow. I’m adding Chad here (and > dropping talk-us), he can answer more specifics about what we’re doing with > the data, but like the ‘other_tag’ we’re using that to further define the > building type where we can. You are correct, DRCOG tasked for imagery and > digitization of that imagery so they are the owners of the data. > > > > =Russ > > > > *From:* Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 6:41 PM > *To:* Russell Deffner > *Cc:* OSM US Talk; Imports US > *Subject:* Re: [Imports-us] OSM-Colorado Mappy Hour Denver Buildings > Import Discussion > > > > The data here: > > http://gis.drcog.org/datacatalog/content/planimetrics-2014-building- > roofprints > > > > Doesn't seem to match the description on the wiki. Perhaps it has already > been converted partly to the OSM tagging (e.g. sheds and garages are > separate)? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Russ, > > > > This is very exciting to see this coming along. Let me know how I can > help. Hopefully we can use its success to convince other government bodies > in Colorado to allow us to import their data into OSM! Here are a few > comments. > > > > re: "The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), in partnership > with local governments and public entities, has purchased detailed > infrastructure data..." - This makes it sound like they purchased a > commercial dataset, which raises questions about licensing in my mind. I > suspect that what happened is they "contracted for the collection of > detailed infrastructure data..." In other words, it was work for hire, and > they own all rights to the data,. Therefore, as long as the right official > within DRCOG signs off, we are good (no third party vendor has any > ownership rights in the data and doesn't have to be consulted). If this is > in fact the case, someone may wish to change the wording. > > > > "Tagging Plans", "OTHER_TAG" - does this contain any useful information we > can map to OSM tags? > > > > re: "Building Roofprints (poly) - Stereo-compiled (3D)" > > * Where applicable, are the buildings in the source data orthogonal > (square corners) - like we try to create in OSM? > > * re "multi-level commercial/industrial buildings" I presume this means a > building that has multiple roof heights, not multiple levels/floors inside > the building. For example a building that has one section that is two > stories high and has a roof height of 20 feet, and another section that is > three stories high and has a roof height of 30 feet. > > * re "multi-level commercial/industrial buildings" - consider relations > to group the various building parts together. [1] > > > > A "parking structure" should probably be tagged: > > amenity=parking > > parking=multi-storey [3] > > (not sure it should get a building tag) > > > > A "tank" should probably not be tagged as building=, but rather just > man_made=storage_tank [2] > > > > Not all "medical" buildings will be hospitals. > > > > Nothing is said about how the features other than buildings will be > imported. > > > > Nothing is said about how the imported data will be conflated with the > existing OSM data (I see there is a place holder). > > > > re "Merge Colorado Office of Information Technology (OIT) state address > layer..." - does this data have a ODbL compatible license? > > > > Mike > > > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings > > [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstorage_tank > > [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Russell Deffner <russdeff...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Greetings all, this is a cross-post :) > > > > For some of you this may be old news/reminder. Last spring the Denver > Regional Council of Governments approached our local group, OSM-Colorado > <https://www.meetup.com/OSM-Colorado/>, to discuss if and how a ton of > planimetric data that they have collected and released as public domain > could also be added to OpenStreetMap. Since then we’ve been discussing > with the local mappers and working together with DRCOG to prepare a pilot > import for their building dataset and we’re very close to that goal. This > email is mainly a ‘last call’ for the local/US community to review what we > have outlined on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ > wiki/Denver_Planimetrics_Import before we send notice to the main imports > list. > > > > The other thing this email is, and why I’m cross-posting, is because we’d > love to have you come discuss the import and other OSM stuff at a Mappy > Hour tomorrow the 25th; details: https://www.meetup.com/OSM- > Colorado/events/237116910/ > > > > Of course if you can’t make mappy hour please email me any comments, > thoughts, suggestions or advice; thank you! > > =Russ > > > > Russell Deffner > > russdeff...@gmail.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Imports-us mailing list > Imports-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Imports-us mailing list Imports-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
