[OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[Worst Fixer]

Hello.

There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago.

Import is held by following account:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings

I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad?

It is absent from following web page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue

I want know why importer uses following tags:

* chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users).

I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any
more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given.

* addr:street:name (173 882 objects, used by 7 users),
* addr:street:prefix (173 882 objects, used by 3 users),
* addr:street:type (173 874 objects, note: different numbers, used by 7
users)

Not discussed anywhere. Used by low number of users. Not documented. No
justification for this tag was given.

If not needed this tags are, I hope they will be removed and not imported.
Not sure who does that remove: I, Ian Dees, Frederik Ramm or some other
body.

We have data working group. Data working group ban, delete, revert. Have we
working group will help clean imports, not ban? I want not ban chicago
building import. I want clear answers for reasons why it is done this way.
I think it can be better. I found this on wiki, but it seems dead:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Import_Support_Working_Group


-- 
WorstFixer, twitter: http://twitter.com/WorstFixer
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[Colin Smale]

On 27/05/2012 17:54, Worst Fixer wrote:

Hello.

There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago.

Import is held by following account:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings

I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad?

It is absent from following web page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue

I want know why importer uses following tags:

* chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users).

I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any
more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given.

Who has the right to ban a tag? Where does it say that a tag has to be 
justified?


I understand your concerns about the import process, but not your 
allergy to tags which don't fit your idea of what's valid.


Colin


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 27 May 2012 18:11, Colin Smale  wrote:
> On 27/05/2012 17:54, Worst Fixer wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago.
>>
>> Import is held by following account:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings
>>
>> I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad?
>>
>> It is absent from following web page:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue
>>
>> I want know why importer uses following tags:
>>
>> * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users).
>>
>> I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any
>> more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given.
>>
> Who has the right to ban a tag? Where does it say that a tag has to be
> justified?

The DWG has the right to block imports with unjustified tags and has
done that on many occasions, and also made it clear on the imports@
list that this would happen.  It's also documented on the wiki.

However the partial street name tags have been discussed on talk-us@
several times and were considered to be useful.  I'd also say that a
single "id" tag referring to another database may be useful and not an
overkill to the OSM database.  Not saying that the precise tagging
shouldn't have been discussed beforehand.

Cheers

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[Russ Nelson]

Worst Fixer writes:
 > I want know why importer uses following tags:
 > 
 > * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users).

Very likely it's the database number in the source database.

This is Yet Another import from a database being maintained by someone
else. This is why we need a "closedstreetmap.org", which publishes, in
OSM format using the OSM API, data which cannot be sensibly edited.

 > If not needed this tags are, I hope they will be removed and not imported.

Why? Does it make sense to remove something which can be useful to
someone else?

Remember: it's not important (AT ALL) that everyone use tag X to map
feature Y. It *is* very important that everyone who uses tag X, use it
to map feature Y. It seems as if you think that feature Y should
always be mapped using tag X, and that if tag X does not correspond to
a physical characteristic of feature Y, it should be removed. I don't
think you will find much agreement on that.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[Jaak Laineste]

I guess the data source is 
https://data.cityofchicago.org/Buildings/Building-Footprints/w2v3-isjw . It is 
nice and rich data, but certainly importing this way is wrong. 

Jaak
On May 27, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Worst Fixer  wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago.
> 
> Import is held by following account:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings
> 
> I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad?
> 
> It is absent from following web page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue
> 
> I want know why importer uses following tags:
> 
> * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users).
> 
> I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any more. 
> But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given.
> 
> * addr:street:name (173 882 objects, used by 7 users), 
> * addr:street:prefix (173 882 objects, used by 3 users),
> * addr:street:type (173 874 objects, note: different numbers, used by 7 users)
> 
> Not discussed anywhere. Used by low number of users. Not documented. No 
> justification for this tag was given.
> 
> If not needed this tags are, I hope they will be removed and not imported. 
> Not sure who does that remove: I, Ian Dees, Frederik Ramm or some other body.
> 
> We have data working group. Data working group ban, delete, revert. Have we 
> working group will help clean imports, not ban? I want not ban chicago 
> building import. I want clear answers for reasons why it is done this way. I 
> think it can be better. I found this on wiki, but it seems dead:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Import_Support_Working_Group
> 
> 
> -- 
> WorstFixer, twitter: http://twitter.com/WorstFixer
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[David Earl]

On 27/05/2012 17:11, Colin Smale wrote:

On 27/05/2012 17:54, Worst Fixer wrote:

I want know why importer uses following tags:

* chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users).

I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any
more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given.


Who has the right to ban a tag? Where does it say that a tag has to be
justified?

I understand your concerns about the import process, but not your
allergy to tags which don't fit your idea of what's valid.


Indeed, users need such tags. If you have a database that it is not 
appropriate to include in OSM, it is important to have a means of 
linking the items in each, and using OSM IDs is not usually viable 
because they change at the drop of a hat. Using a reference scheme to 
link the two database is a widely used technique. Most of the bus stops 
in the UK are done like this because they are linked to a third party 
database of bus stops from which they were derived.


David


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[Colin Smale]

On 27/05/2012 18:21, andrzej zaborowski wrote:

On 27 May 2012 18:11, Colin Smale  wrote:

On 27/05/2012 17:54, Worst Fixer wrote:

Hello.

There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago.

Import is held by following account:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings

I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad?

It is absent from following web page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue

I want know why importer uses following tags:

* chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users).

I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any
more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given.


Who has the right to ban a tag? Where does it say that a tag has to be
justified?

The DWG has the right to block imports with unjustified tags and has
done that on many occasions, and also made it clear on the imports@
list that this would happen.  It's also documented on the wiki.
Searched the wiki but couldn't find anything covering the 
"justification" of tags and the role of DWG...Do you have any 
links/references?



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[Ian Dees]

Worst Fixer wrote
> 
> Hello.
> 
> There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago.
> 
> Import is held by following account:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings
> 
> I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad?
> 

I discussed it with people in Chicago and received several positive
reactions.


Worst Fixer wrote
> 
> It is absent from following web page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue
> 

There are dozens of imports absent from the Import Catalog. If you'd like to
add it to the catalog, be my guest.


Worst Fixer wrote
> 
> I want know why importer uses following tags:
> 
> * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users).
> 
> I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any
> more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given.
> 

As I discussed with you, I am no longer uploading data with the tag and will
go back to remove the tag from the existing data.


Worst Fixer wrote
> 
> * addr:street:name (173 882 objects, used by 7 users),
> * addr:street:prefix (173 882 objects, used by 3 users),
> * addr:street:type (173 874 objects, note: different numbers, used by 7
> users)
> 
> Not discussed anywhere. Used by low number of users. Not documented. No
> justification for this tag was given.
> 

Tags don't need justification. If you have a problem with how the data is
represented, then let's have a discussion about how to better represent the
data.


Worst Fixer wrote
> 
> If not needed this tags are, I hope they will be removed and not imported.
> Not sure who does that remove: I, Ian Dees, Frederik Ramm or some other
> body.
> 
> We have data working group. Data working group ban, delete, revert. Have
> we
> working group will help clean imports, not ban? I want not ban chicago
> building import. I want clear answers for reasons why it is done this way.
> I think it can be better. I found this on wiki, but it seems dead:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Import_Support_Working_Group
> 

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-of-buildings-in-Chicago-tp5710269p5710291.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[Alan]

On May 27, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
> Worst Fixer wrote
>> 
>> I want know why importer uses following tags:
>> 
>> * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users).
>> 
>> I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any
>> more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given.
>> 
> 
> As I discussed with you, I am no longer uploading data with the tag and will
> go back to remove the tag from the existing data.

I object.

An ID tag is highly useful for future reconciliation and/or synchronization 
later.  And the "chicago:" namespace is, in my opinion, definitely the correct 
way to do it, because it clearly defines the scope of the id.  The 
chicago:building_id should stay.Not including it is "dumping data" into 
OSM; including it is enabling collaborative use.

- Alan


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[Ian Dees]

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Alan  wrote:

>
> On May 27, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
> > Worst Fixer wrote
> >>
> >> I want know why importer uses following tags:
> >>
> >> * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users).
> >>
> >> I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any
> >> more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given.
> >>
> >
> > As I discussed with you, I am no longer uploading data with the tag and
> will
> > go back to remove the tag from the existing data.
>
> I object.
>
> An ID tag is highly useful for future reconciliation and/or
> synchronization later.  And the "chicago:" namespace is, in my opinion,
> definitely the correct way to do it, because it clearly defines the scope
> of the id.  The chicago:building_id should stay.Not including it is
> "dumping data" into OSM; including it is enabling collaborative use.


I've searched for a reliable way of doing this for years and have yet to
find anything worthwhile.

Leaving the external ID on the objects doesn't really help when others
remove or split the shape later on. On the other hand, they don't hurt
anything...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[Frank Steggink]

On 27-5-2012 20:58, Ian Dees wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Alan > wrote:



I object.

An ID tag is highly useful for future reconciliation and/or
synchronization later.  And the "chicago:" namespace is, in my
opinion, definitely the correct way to do it, because it clearly
defines the scope of the id.  The chicago:building_id should stay.
   Not including it is "dumping data" into OSM; including it is
enabling collaborative use.


I've searched for a reliable way of doing this for years and have yet 
to find anything worthwhile.


Leaving the external ID on the objects doesn't really help when others 
remove or split the shape later on. On the other hand, they don't hurt 
anything...


I tend to think that keeping the ID has no use. As Ian mentioned, users 
can (and will) edit the data, so those features become split, merged 
together, or erased. The way OSM 'works' makes it really hard to deal 
with the ID's. There is also the principle that imports should not 
override user-contributed data, so (I assume that) a part of the 
building won't be imported at all. That will leave the set of ID's in 
the OSM DB in an incomplete state, which makes it much less useful.


Updates, if done at all, could better be done by using geographical 
matching. It would be great to have some generic tools with which an 
external datasource can be compared with OSM. This will generate a set 
of changeset files: one with matching features, one with modified 
features, one with 'new' features (not existing in OSM), one with 
'deleted' features (features which only exist in OSM). Then the user 
taking care of the import would only need to look at the latter three, 
to judge what has happened, and manually apply the changes he wishes.


In the Dutch community we've been discussing this a while ago, because 
all buildings in the Netherlands are available in a high quality PD 
dataset, called BAG (Basisregistratie Adressen and Gebouwen: base 
registration of adresses and buildings). Ironically, exactly the reason 
this dataset is existing and freely available, it makes it not worth 
while the effort to import this into OSM, and impose the burden of 
updating it onto ourselves. It is much more convenient to take OSM 
without buildings (and addresses) and merge this with the other dataset.


Frank

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] OSM data density - top regions

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

   if you render the world on zoom level 16, there are 67 million "meta 
tiles" (each covering an area of 8x8 tiles). The majority of them are in 
the sea, obviously, and unlikely to have any data. 20 million meta tiles 
are not in the sea; of these, 4.4 million have at least one node.


As of 27th May 2012, only 142 of these meta tiles have more than 100,000 
nodes on them; the front-runner has a whopping 227,000. 105 are in 
France, 26 in the US, 3 each in Italy and Brazil, and one each in Spain, 
Japan, Denmark, Austria, and Indonesia.


This count is a side effect of something else I was doing and I 
apologise for not making a proper map of it; I've only dumped and 
reverse-geocoded the top 142 regions:


http://fred.dev.openstreetmap.org/density/

I'd be interested to know how many of these are actually the work of 
human mappers. Most of the French ones are probably imported buildings, 
but the others?


If anyone wants to do something interesting with it, the full file of 
all 4.4 million metatiles and how many nodes on them is available on 
request (or the rather primitive script that makes the list from a 
planet file).


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM data density - top regions

[Kate Chapman]

The one in Indonesia is the work of human mappers. There has been an
effort going on to map all the buildings in Padang for the past 9
months or so.

It does look like some cleanup does need to be done of the area due to
some duplicate nodes and other problems. But overall I think it has
been a really great effort of a lot of folks to help.

If you look at HOT's Tasking Manager you can see there is a large area
that has been worked on that is almost finished. It is an area HOT
bought high resolution satellite imagery for through a grant.

-Kate

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   if you render the world on zoom level 16, there are 67 million "meta
> tiles" (each covering an area of 8x8 tiles). The majority of them are in the
> sea, obviously, and unlikely to have any data. 20 million meta tiles are not
> in the sea; of these, 4.4 million have at least one node.
>
> As of 27th May 2012, only 142 of these meta tiles have more than 100,000
> nodes on them; the front-runner has a whopping 227,000. 105 are in France,
> 26 in the US, 3 each in Italy and Brazil, and one each in Spain, Japan,
> Denmark, Austria, and Indonesia.
>
> This count is a side effect of something else I was doing and I apologise
> for not making a proper map of it; I've only dumped and reverse-geocoded the
> top 142 regions:
>
> http://fred.dev.openstreetmap.org/density/
>
> I'd be interested to know how many of these are actually the work of human
> mappers. Most of the French ones are probably imported buildings, but the
> others?
>
> If anyone wants to do something interesting with it, the full file of all
> 4.4 million metatiles and how many nodes on them is available on request (or
> the rather primitive script that makes the list from a planet file).
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM data density - top regions

[Kate Chapman]

I apologize to all, I forgot the appropriate link to the task:
http://tasks.hotosm.org/job/9

-Kate

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Kate Chapman  wrote:
> The one in Indonesia is the work of human mappers. There has been an
> effort going on to map all the buildings in Padang for the past 9
> months or so.
>
> It does look like some cleanup does need to be done of the area due to
> some duplicate nodes and other problems. But overall I think it has
> been a really great effort of a lot of folks to help.
>
> If you look at HOT's Tasking Manager you can see there is a large area
> that has been worked on that is almost finished. It is an area HOT
> bought high resolution satellite imagery for through a grant.
>
> -Kate
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>   if you render the world on zoom level 16, there are 67 million "meta
>> tiles" (each covering an area of 8x8 tiles). The majority of them are in the
>> sea, obviously, and unlikely to have any data. 20 million meta tiles are not
>> in the sea; of these, 4.4 million have at least one node.
>>
>> As of 27th May 2012, only 142 of these meta tiles have more than 100,000
>> nodes on them; the front-runner has a whopping 227,000. 105 are in France,
>> 26 in the US, 3 each in Italy and Brazil, and one each in Spain, Japan,
>> Denmark, Austria, and Indonesia.
>>
>> This count is a side effect of something else I was doing and I apologise
>> for not making a proper map of it; I've only dumped and reverse-geocoded the
>> top 142 regions:
>>
>> http://fred.dev.openstreetmap.org/density/
>>
>> I'd be interested to know how many of these are actually the work of human
>> mappers. Most of the French ones are probably imported buildings, but the
>> others?
>>
>> If anyone wants to do something interesting with it, the full file of all
>> 4.4 million metatiles and how many nodes on them is available on request (or
>> the rather primitive script that makes the list from a planet file).
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[Gregory Arenius]

>
> This is Yet Another import from a database being maintained by someone
> else. This is why we need a "closedstreetmap.org", which publishes, in
> OSM format using the OSM API, data which cannot be sensibly edited.
>

I disagree that buildings can't be sensibly edited.  I trace them, add
addresses to them, give them tags such as school or hospital or restaurant
or fire station or library or Sometimes I even delete them if they're
not there anymore.  Same as streets, or parks, really.  Also, I know in San
Francisco some people were experimenting with adding more information to
buildings such as number of units and construction materials, to make the
data more useful for emergency response. (eg, after a large earthquake,
maybe we should check the unreinforced masonry buildings with a lot of
units first)

I also don't see the problem with importing a dataset that someone else is
still maintaining.  We're just forking their dataset.  Pretty much every
municipality has a database of their streets...so do we.  If they have one
of their buildings, why can't we?


> In the Dutch community we've been discussing this a while ago, because all
> buildings in the Netherlands are available in a high quality PD dataset,
> called BAG (Basisregistratie Adressen and Gebouwen: base registration of
> adresses and buildings). Ironically, exactly the reason this dataset is
> existing and freely available, it makes it not worth while the effort to
> import this into OSM, and impose the burden of updating it onto ourselves.
> It is much more convenient to take OSM without buildings (and addresses)
> and merge this with the other dataset.
>

I disagree that it would be more convenient to have to merge two different
datasets, that are probably in different formats, than it would be to just
use one dataset that has all the information in it.  Especially seeing as
how everyone who wants to use the data will have to do that work, where as
if it is in OSM it only has to be merged that one time.  If that data were
in OSM then all the apps and routers and maps that use OSM, and there are a
ton of them, would be able to locate addresses and render buildings.  As it
is they aren't able to because the data isn't there and each application or
map  would have to find the data for the Netherlands (and if we do things
that way everywhere else, the data for everywhere else, too!) and then
figure out how to merge it or how to work with a non-OSM format.  More
likely this doesn't happen and everybody ends up with much less useful
data.

Cheers,
Greg
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM data density - top regions

[Alan Mintz]

At 2012-05-27 14:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
As of 27th May 2012, only 142 of these meta tiles have more than 100,000 
nodes on them; the front-runner has a whopping 227,000. 105 are in France, 
26 in the US, 3 each in Italy and Brazil, and one each in Spain, Japan, 
Denmark, Austria, and Indonesia.


Of the US tiles, 6 are Kern County, CA and 9 are Cook County, IL, both of 
which have been the subject of recent discussion here about import of 
building outlines.


Here are some details about a small piece* of one of these Kern County tiles:

1667KB OSM XML

6036 nodes:
- 5702 nodes that are part of building ways
- 256 trees
- 69 highway nodes

525 ways
- 489 building ways
- 34 highways

That is to say this medium-density (4-5 houses per acre) residential 
neighborhood would have 78 nodes (1.3% of current) and 36 ways (6.9% of 
current) without the building outlines and trees. The OSM XML would be 31KB 
(1.9% of current).




* 0.5 mi x 0.5 mi (800 m x 800 m) at minlat='35.3979622' 
minlon='-119.1277814' maxlat='35.4052032' maxlon='-119.1188657'


--
Alan Mintz 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk