Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Paul Norman wrote: If you assume wall=no buildings attached to buildings without a wall tag can be combined, I would estimate that the number of ways is at least 1.5x what it needs to be. -1, I'd suggest building=roof for those that are roofs. IMHO it is nice to distinguish them. Why do you think that mappers wouldn't do this as well? If it's different buildings attached to each other they shouldn't be a single blob. In the recent talk@ discussions most mappers who commented on the issue of how they'd normally map the examples given said they'd do it as one building. If we were talking about houses and garages or carports I could see doing it as two, but as indicated above, these aren't that large. My current practice is to work against 'house number' so I'm slowly splitting semi's and terraces so that each has it's own house number. I'm not making any distinction between single story and two or more story - something which I think the Cadastre data does provide extra detail for but without tags in the raw data - only splitting a property where there is a detached garage or other structure on the same land parcel. Car ports are just part of the one profile and I'm not at the moment mapping 'patio areas' which seem to get attached as buildings without walls? Pavement cafe terraces and the like should be correctly tagged as such. The problem *I* am seeing with the cadastre data I have looked at is that a building is not simply one or two profiles, but several seemingly unrelated elements all strange shapes and not relating to the imagery. Since there is no explanation of the detail my feeling was that these SHOULD all have been combined into a single element in the raw processing until such time as real detail of a difference was available? I'd EVEN be happy with a 'bot' going around the current data and combining adjacent or overlapping buildings into one where there IS no other tagging? This would at least give a better representation of what is known and I believe would substantially reduce the number of building elements? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
2012/9/30 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: The problem *I* am seeing with the cadastre data I have looked at is that a building is not simply one or two profiles, but several seemingly unrelated elements all strange shapes and not relating to the imagery. Since there is no explanation of the detail my feeling was that these SHOULD all have been combined into a single element in the raw processing until such time as real detail of a difference was available? We provided explanations many times... Separate polygons can come from: - different ownership of building parts - different building but same looking roof on the aerials - different building type: porchs, garages, hangar, without wall tagged as wall=no It is not data errors, but much more detailed geometry compared to what you can do by simply surveying or trace on aerials. Some may think its too much details, some don't. I'd EVEN be happy with a 'bot' going around the current data and combining adjacent or overlapping buildings into one where there IS no other tagging? This would at least give a better representation of what is known and I believe would substantially reduce the number of building elements? This would not work in most cases like we explained already several times. Is cities this would make a whole block looking as one building. My own house would be merged with all the neighborhood houses. pnorman wrote: The cadastre imports are more complicated. I'm not aware of any comprehensive studies on the quality of the imports, but I did some analysis[1] previously. Based on this, about 75% of the buildings are building=yes wall=yes and 25% are building=yes with no wall tag. building=* + wall=no should be more in the 25% zone and building=* without wall=* tag in the 75% (we do not use wall=yes). Many wall=no polygons are porch, garages in France usually have walls... and locks ;) -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Am 30.09.2012 um 03:28 schrieb Paul Norman penor...@mac.com: The distribution of building sizes indicates otherwise. The most common building size in the cadastre imports is a mere 6 square meters (65 square feet). Sorry, of course you are right, I guess I was confused last night ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
2012/9/30 Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr: We provided explanations many times... Separate polygons can come from: - different ownership of building parts ... It is not data errors, but much more detailed geometry compared to what you can do by simply surveying or trace on aerials. IMHO it is a data error when one building is split up into several buildings because the one building has more than 1 owner, or do you tag the parts as parts and have eventually a method of recombining these parts into one building? As far as I know we do not at all tag owners of objects in OSM. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
From: Vladimir Vyskocil [mailto:vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre The larger part of cadastre data is just dumped into the data base never to be touched again by any mapper. That's also wrong, the french community has developed some very powerful tools like osmose.openstreetmap.fr which is used to automatically discover many errors from cadastre and others, it's used along the import process by many people to locate and fix many bugs, for example here is a search focused on some errors that we seek : Sarah's numbers come from Nominatim and the statistics for France and are based on most of the imported buildings not having other tags added to them. Because I have a pgsnapshot database at home I can do a more detailed analysis to evaluate what percentage of cadastre buildings have been touched since they were uploaded, looking at any change, even the addition or deletion of nodes. There are 28.7 million building=* ways with one of the top 5 cadastre source values on http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/source#values. Of these 17.9 million are version=1. 62.2% of cadastre building ways are never touched again by any mapper. Sarah is correct and the majority of imported buildings are never touched. Aside: Because 18% of the ways in the database are from the French cadastre generating these stats requires a sequential scan of the ways table and really makes me with I had an array of SSDs. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: We provided explanations many times... Separate polygons can come from: - different ownership of building parts ... It is not data errors, but much more detailed geometry compared to what you can do by simply surveying or trace on aerials. IMHO it is a data error when one building is split up into several buildings because the one building has more than 1 owner, or do you tag the parts as parts and have eventually a method of recombining these parts into one building? As far as I know we do not at all tag owners of objects in OSM. I'm happy to split buildings where I have house numbers ... then there is an identifiable difference between the two halves. But I am sorry Christian I simply do not accept that cadastre is producing the detail you claim. NONE of the buildings that I DID waste time tracking back through the Main site were identifiable as separate structures !!! And the facts in the database do not support your claim :( The area identified a couple of days back had small buildings with multiple odd shaped blocks that bare no relation to the imagery and have no additional tagging. It would be easier for a french speaker to get back through the Cadastre site, but when I did manage to get to that area I could see little to identify separate buildings that were being displayed in OSM! Heck, the OS streetview data is cleaner and we decided NOT to import that ... I have no doubt SOME French mappers are using the data as intended, but on the whole I don't think the data does anything to improve OSM :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Sep 30, 2012, at 3:41 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: Of these 17.9 million are version=1. 62.2% of cadastre building ways are never touched again by any mapper. So what? That still doesn't tell you anything. We've already heard descriptions of the process including edits and cleanup before the first commit. You can do lots of spot-checks to find polygons that appear to not match aerial photos and call them liars about *that*, but *these* numbers tell nothing about it one way or the other. Sarah is correct and the majority of imported buildings are never touched. No, it does not tell you they aren't touched. It tells you that they aren't touched after the first commit. If they edited it before the commit, then of course most won't need to be touched again soon! Oh, and the other 12+ million, 38%, almost half, with multiple edits? Yeah, sorry France, you don't get any credit for that. I am so sick and tired of this discussion.All the import-criticizers rant and whine about build the local community. What I'm reading is there's a pretty active community in France, and they like this cadastre import. If you are outside France, shut up and let them do their thing. - Alan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Sep 30, 2012, at 3:10 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I know we do not at all tag owners of objects in OSM. By we, do you mean your local community or all OSM users? If all users, then as far as I know, we tag anything we find useful in OSM. Oh, see also: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/operator -Alan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
From: Toby Murray [mailto:toby.mur...@gmail.com] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Réf.: Re: All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre I think the biggest cost for long tags that are heavily used is really in the planet file size. A bigger planet takes longer to generate, longer to download, longer to parse. The sheer size of it can be a problem to some potential users. Especially when over 10% of it is just tags from imports that most data consumers couldn't care less about. I think I calculated once that the tiger:upload_uuid tag here in the US is responsible for about 1% of the data in the planet file. Since it is a random string with hundreds of thousands of possible values, it doesn't compress well either. The French cadastre imports are about twice the size of TIGER, measured in number of tagged objects. What's more interesting is the difference between the current OSM data and what it would be if excess data and tags were removed. Looking at a random TIGER way (5264081) it has 16 tags instead of the 3-4 I would use if tagging it. The 16 tags total 460 characters for keys and values and the 4 total 79. To simplify, I'll assume that TIGER consumes about 4x the space in tags it needs to. On the other hand, it has no excess nodes. The technical downsides to this extra space consumed are larger planets and more complicated tag columns and indexes. Most data consumers will drop the TIGER tags along with the source tags so it will increase the time taken for the initial load of data and applying diffs. The cadastre imports are more complicated. I'm not aware of any comprehensive studies on the quality of the imports, but I did some analysis[1] previously. Based on this, about 75% of the buildings are building=yes wall=yes and 25% are building=yes with no wall tag. The same analysis as done for TIGER indicates 2x the space in tags that it needs to use. What is considerably more complicated is the geometries used in the French import. A typical example would be a detached house with a porch, represented as two ways when most mappers would recommend one. This results in extra ways which results in extra rows, larger geometry indexes, slower queries and all the tag information being duplicated. The important question is, how many buildings are like this? It is possible to get an answer to how many share ways, but in some cases sharing ways is normal (e.g. a block in a city where the buildings are joined). A complete analysis is beyond the scope of this email, but we can get an idea from [2] and the fact that the most common unsimplified building area in the import is 6 square meters[3]. This indicates that the case of a building way with attached ways to represent the porches and other attached areas. If you assume wall=no buildings attached to buildings without a wall tag can be combined, I would estimate that the number of ways is at least 1.5x what it needs to be. An average cadastre building way uses 5.75 nodes. If you consider the case of a square building where one corner is mapped with wall=no this is a change from 7 nodes (6 in one and 4 in the other, but some nodes share) to 4 nodes. Again, we get a result on the order of 1.5x as many nodes as required. For most data consumers the bloat in objects from the cadastre imports will be far more significant than the bloat in tags on TIGER data. It's hard to convert these to raw times, but to give an idea, throwing out raw buildings reportedly reduced the Nominatim import time from 48 hours to 37 hours, and half the buildings are in France. I would welcome a more complete analysis and if anyone needs me to run some queries on my pgsnapshot DB I could do so. One schema where you could actually make a direct comparison is pgsnapshot. It can store listening geometry and it stores all tags in an hstore field. I'm not really sure how the linestring geometry is stored on disk. When queried at a postgres prompt, it returns a string that is 187 characters long for some random 4 node way I picked out. I believe the representation on-disk uses space proportional to the string returned. This doesn't tell you how much space is taken up by nodes which is more significant. [1]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-September/064559.html [2]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-September/064576.html [3]: http://merry.paulnorman.ca:7201/dist2.pdf ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Am 30.09.2012 um 02:04 schrieb Paul Norman penor...@mac.com: in a city where the buildings are joined). A complete analysis is beyond the scope of this email, but we can get an idea from [2] and the fact that the most common unsimplified building area in the import is 6 square meters[3]. This indicates that the case of a building way with attached ways to represent the porches and other attached areas. I guess these are mainly garages and car ports, not porches If you assume wall=no buildings attached to buildings without a wall tag can be combined, I would estimate that the number of ways is at least 1.5x what it needs to be. -1, I'd suggest building=roof for those that are roofs. IMHO it is nice to distinguish them. Why do you think that mappers wouldn't do this as well? If it's different buildings attached to each other they shouldn't be a single blob. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre Am 30.09.2012 um 02:04 schrieb Paul Norman penor...@mac.com: in a city where the buildings are joined). A complete analysis is beyond the scope of this email, but we can get an idea from [2] and the fact that the most common unsimplified building area in the import is 6 square meters[3]. This indicates that the case of a building way with attached ways to represent the porches and other attached areas. I guess these are mainly garages and car ports, not porches The distribution of building sizes indicates otherwise. The most common building size in the cadastre imports is a mere 6 square meters (65 square feet). Wikipedia gives the area of a Ford Fiesta as 7 square meters, and that doesn't leave any room to open the doors. You might be able to fit a Smart Fortwo into a 6 square meter garage but I doubt you'd be able to open the doors. Just for reference, the 1950s garage at home that barely fits a small car though the entrance has an area of about 17 square meters. If you assume wall=no buildings attached to buildings without a wall tag can be combined, I would estimate that the number of ways is at least 1.5x what it needs to be. -1, I'd suggest building=roof for those that are roofs. IMHO it is nice to distinguish them. Why do you think that mappers wouldn't do this as well? If it's different buildings attached to each other they shouldn't be a single blob. In the recent talk@ discussions most mappers who commented on the issue of how they'd normally map the examples given said they'd do it as one building. If we were talking about houses and garages or carports I could see doing it as two, but as indicated above, these aren't that large. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:21:38PM +0100, THEVENON Julien wrote: De : Sarah Hoffmann lon...@denofr.de I don't know which data you have been looking at, but let's ask Nominatim, shall we? Ok, so by example could you extract stats from Grenoble instead of whole France ? I thinks this quite representative of cities where there are buildings and quite a lot of details. Grenoble (as in relation 80348) has 13199 raw buildings and 10160 other objects indexed. So, yes, this seems to be an example where the cadastre data was put to very good use. But the fact remains that this does not happen in most of the rest of France. The larger part of cadastre data is just dumped into the data base never to be touched again by any mapper. (For reference: for the entire planet there are approx. two other objects for each raw building. This ratio holds even for Germany.) Concerning discussions about separated accounts I`m sure that there is a good reason behind that but it was perhaps decided for cases that do not match French one. What we are trying to do here is to discuss to understand why this rule has been done ( that's why we are asking for a list of issues that import Guidelines Rules want to address ) and if it is possible to find a solution both satisfy the goal you have and that do not create problems for good-will french mapppers that spend time to perform clean cadastre integration. I`m convinced ( or at least I hope )that you don`t create this rule to make French mappers crazy. The main problem is that you are asking for an exception to the import rules on the grounds that your imports are small and carefully manually checked and augmented with non-cadastre data. The numbers simply don't support your claims. In fact, they say that the cadastre import is the largest import OSM currently has to deal with, if it is not even the largest import OSM ever had to deal with. If the French community could admit that it would be a big step towards resolving the conflict. Nobody contests that the cadastre situation is special. There is no question that you have been thinking about this import very carefully. The amount of work you have put in the development of tools for it is admirable and you put a lot of effort into monitoring the progress, so it certainly is not completely dead data. Still, the amount of data you add is more than could be possibly ever looked over and amended by the French community. The Germans did have a bit of a head start and so far managed to 'only' add about 13 million objects to the database, half of what you have added in buildings. I do think that Richard's proposal presents a fair compromise for you. Those who only want to add a bit of data for their home town can do so without the hassle of creating a second account but those who import the data on a larger scale without the chance to ever check what they import locally must adhere to the import guidlines and do so on a special account. The barrier of entry that creates is not necessarily a bad thing. Concerning the waste of bandwidth and CPU, the nuisance for people who want to use OSM data I understand the problem but I guess it will come even without cadastre because due to Open Data mouvment there will certainly more and more big data sources to integrate. It it not really the amount of data that is the problem. There are ways to handle that. Storage does get cheaper with time. The problem is that the data, as it is today, is - excuse the hard word - garbage in the eyes of data users. You cannot use it for search or routing, there are no addresses or names or pois. It is rather ugly for rendering, there are no real buildings just unspecific building parts and way too much detail (small round edifices using up 40 nodes, what for?). You cannot do real statistics on them, there are just unspecific building parts... So essentially alomost every data user has to go through 25 million buildings just to throw them away. It is not the end of the world, but it is mildly annoying. cadastre could be a great resource for mappers if used responsibly. Restrict yourself to areas where you know that mappers will add more details immediately. If you really believe that importing the data attracts new mappers then make sure that the data is massively simplified before the import. You still have the source. If really in the future somebody wants to add information that require more detailed building outlines, you can go back to cadastre and get those details. If you could change your strategy in that way you would make the data infinitly more useful for data users and you would most likely find much less opposition in the international community against cadastre. Sarah ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Le ven. 28 sept. 2012 08:00 HAEC, Paul Norman a écrit : sorry this detailled here in section les differents calques wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cadastre_Français/Aspects_techni ques_du_cadastre_en_ligne and here qu est ce qui est reutilisable wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cadastre_Français/Conditions_d'u tilisation I wasn't asking about legal restrictions. I was asking what can be imported without having to go to the community to consult about a new import. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
The larger part of cadastre data is just dumped into the data base never to be touched again by any mapper. That's also wrong, the french community has developed some very powerful tools like osmose.openstreetmap.fr which is used to automatically discover many errors from cadastre and others, it's used along the import process by many people to locate and fix many bugs, for example here is a search focused on some errors that we seek : http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/map/?zoom=12lat=45.22034lon=5.74928layers=B00FF0FFTitem=0,1040,3091level=1 Osmose is going worldwide for some analysis, so other community will benefit from this great tool. There are also many go and return between data from cadastre and already in place data like roads and POI, the locations of each objects is used to improve the global accuracy (also with the help of other source : Bing,...). I discovered and fixed many roads and POI with the help of the building footprints, in the process I try also to fix errors on cadastre that I can spot, some split buildings from time to time,... Very often I can spot isolated buildings imported from cadastre and make search how to map the missing roads. There are also IGN (french geomatic institute) landmarks which have been imported in the base, they are very accurately positioned reference physical points like the cross of church,... They are often used to precisely fix the location of the cadastre data if needed. no addresses or names or pois. It is rather ugly for rendering, there are no real buildings just unspecific building parts and way too much detail (small round edifices using up 40 nodes, what for?). You cannot do real statistics on them, there are just unspecific building parts... So essentially alomost every data user has to go through 25 million buildings just to throw them away. It is not the end of the world, but it is mildly annoying. I don't agree the cadastre is ugly once rendered ! A rendered map like this for example, is in my opinion something more pleasant than a map with only a house once and there with large holes : http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.70272lon=7.26654zoom=15layers=Q This data is also beautifully used by the community behind 3D rendered map used in X-Plane flight simulator. 3D maps is something on the rise and detailed buildings are needed for this ! Regards, Vlad. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
While I would agree that the French data is huge, it _is_ pleasing to be able to make maps where the density of building is observable, even if you know nothing about the buildings. I'm not sure that every building in every village is quite required, but it'll probably go that way eventually. Is tracing better than importing for creating community and high-quality tagged data? I'll guess we'll know after this little experiment. I think we have perhaps discussed this long enough (translation: stop!) Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: I don't agree the cadastre is ugly once rendered ! A rendered map like this for example, is in my opinion something more pleasant than a map with only a house once and there with large holes : http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.70272lon=7.26654zoom=15layers=Q This data is also beautifully used by the community behind 3D rendered map used in X-Plane flight simulator. 3D maps is something on the rise and detailed buildings are needed for this ! There are some excellent examples of how mapping should be done all over the world. But I do hope we have shown that a large percentage of the data STILL needs a lot of work? At the end of the day this is more about education of mappers and how to get the best out of the material available. In hindsight I think there is some agreement that perhaps the data should not have been made 'generally' available and that mappers were monitored a little more as to their use of the data? The horse has bolted now, so tools to clean up are now needed :( In SOME areas the cadastre is ugly with several strange shaped blocks sort of grouped together vaguely around the location of a clean square building on the imagery ... that is what is irritating ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
There are some excellent examples of how mapping should be done all over the world. But I do hope we have shown that a large percentage of the data STILL needs a lot of work? At the end of the day this is more about education of mappers and how to get the best out of the material available. In hindsight I think there is some agreement that perhaps the data should not have been made 'generally' available and that mappers were monitored a little more as to their use of the data? The horse has bolted now, so tools to clean up are now needed :( In SOME areas the cadastre is ugly with several strange shaped blocks sort of grouped together vaguely around the location of a clean square building on the imagery ... that is what is irritating ... Yes it's the actual situation, it is like some other big imports : TIGER, PGS coastline,..., it's a work in progress and the community is improving things, it's OpenStreetMap ! I think OSM is better with this data in than without. Vlad. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: There are some excellent examples of how mapping should be done all over the world. But I do hope we have shown that a large percentage of the data STILL needs a lot of work? At the end of the day this is more about education of mappers and how to get the best out of the material available. In hindsight I think there is some agreement that perhaps the data should not have been made 'generally' available and that mappers were monitored a little more as to their use of the data? The horse has bolted now, so tools to clean up are now needed :( In SOME areas the cadastre is ugly with several strange shaped blocks sort of grouped together vaguely around the location of a clean square building on the imagery ... that is what is irritating ... Yes it's the actual situation, it is like some other big imports : TIGER, PGS coastline,..., it's a work in progress and the community is improving things, it's OpenStreetMap ! I think OSM is better with this data in than without. Lessons have been learnt! The 'Proposal for import guidelines' thread seems to have petered out? Nothing seems to have changed :) but I get a feeling that people understand we are all just trying to help ... the British way is always to jump in with the size nine boots :( We don't have the resources to do some of the 'big' things that need doing, so tools like http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr and the other checking tools are essential. However it's a bit like the 'apple' problem - just where do some of these tools work? Actually I think this is perhaps another point for the 'layers' discussion? If there was a layer with the coverage of a tool then it could be used to identify where that tool is functional? Of cause I do get very concerned when I see 'Raw Data Editor' ... yes we have to trust people, but are the safeguards in place to cope with making that freely available? I work with XML data and I would still be nervous editing it without the right tools! -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Le 28/09/2012 10:00, Lester Caine a écrit : There are some excellent examples of how mapping should be done all over the world. But I do hope we have shown that a large percentage of the data STILL needs a lot of work? At the end of the day this is more about education of mappers and how to get the best out of the material available. We all agree with you ! In hindsight I think there is some agreement that perhaps the data should not have been made 'generally' available and that mappers were monitored a little more as to their use of the data? Yes, it one of the issues we are talking about on the talk-fr. The horse has bolted now, so tools to clean up are now needed :( Yes, at the beginning of the cadastre extraction, it has been a kind of fever. And we have added warnings, explanations, tutorials, examples... (and we will add more) But what is already in the database must be cleaned, and sometimes erased for better data. In SOME areas the cadastre is ugly with several strange shaped blocks sort of grouped together vaguely around the location of a clean square building on the imagery ... that is what is irritating ... Yes... we know, and are working to avoid it. Hard work ! But we are also proud of spots like http://osm.org/go/erms5e9vS-- ( very hard to map !) http://osm.org/go/0BImiuDol-- http://osm.org/go/0A4mSoqWJ- -- FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Le 27/09/2012 02:22, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : 2012/9/26 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: To Frederik, In your example, I agree with you that the diagonal line is a glitch, most probably coming from a parcel line just underneath. actually it is not only the diagonal line (which is an obvious error), but it is also all or most of the divisions, which don't seem to corrispond at all to real buildings or parts of them (maybe they are property divisions, but then the property in this ensemble is divided quite weird) when confronted with the aerial imagery. cheers, Martin Looking at the tags on the polygons, you will find that some of them have a wall=no that canot be seen from aerial. http://osm.org/go/xVR3y4BJp-- -- FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: Conclusion: A significant number of cadastre imported buildings consist of multiple ways, such as in the example Frederik gave. The difference from other buildings a week old is statistically significant. This is true even if only looking at the subset of buildings that are new buildings. [1]: If anyone doubts this I could carry out an analysis on this point. Paul, could you repeat your analysis where you distinguish polygons tagged building=yes and others tagged building=yes+wall=no (which is our tags to identify non-closed constructions like roof, balcony, shed) ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Personally I would prefer to see http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/funnybuilding.png as a single closed outline box. I think that 6-7 buildings (looking at the bing aerial http://it.bing.com/maps/?v=2cp=44.277739~0.502686lvl=20dir=0sty=hwhere1=44,277748%200,502839form=LMLTCC , maybe there is more but on a first remote approximation I could see 6 or 7) would be much better than a single closed outline box, especially, if the tag is something like building=yes which is used for one building, not groups of them. There is a really huge difference between 1 big building and 7 adjacent small ones. The problem is, that the cadastre version doesn't seem to make sense when compared to the aerial imagery. It is better to have detailed outlines, but only if this detail is depicting reality. Certainly looking at the bing image there seemed to be a major difference between what was drawn and the difference in roof structure. And the overall shape. THIS is where being able to access the raw import data would be useful as a comparison ... if only to identify where the import process is breaking down? I'm seeing EXACTLY the same sorts of problem with the UK data which I have already indicated. I can pull up OS Streetview, bing, and in some cases historic maps and see the differences. It was THIS situation which prompted me originally to look into how the French data was handling it, and I think that it's exactly the same problem! I have referred to 'trusted' data sources, but I do not think any of these sources come into that category, while 'boundaryline', and the French 'landuse' (? which that is) could be treated as 'trusted'? What data can be imported and updated automatically? While some government data has been made 'open source', the KEY material is still locked down! :( Identifying the number of buildings in a block would be easy if we had a list of individual buildings and their location. The UK NLPG data has that list, but we can't use it. Also in the same way as the French data quality varies from town to town, the data within NLPG has the same vast differences in quality, and in many cases relies on the well out of data OS streetview data. Can the cadastre data be accessed as a list? I presume not as I'm sure you would be using it as a cross-check, but it's this 'building list' that is the key to ensuring that each identifiable building is displayed on OSM in the future. In the case of NLPG this will only identify a 'property' which will not necessarily count detached garages and outbuildings unless they are under separate ownership, and I would anticipate the same in the cadastre data? All the discussions here are very much interrelated ( I don't do politics so I ignore that debate ) ... The discussion on 'adding layers' is to a certain extent academic. We ARE already using layers in the editors, and using http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.2777468264103lon=0.502683520317078zoom=19 as our current example, edit gives the potlatch view with bing and there is a major discrepancy between the two layers. It would be nice here if the cadastre import was also available as the OS Streetview is on UK areas. With such a long set of threads I've forgotten and can't find who said that OSM had specific to USE the cadastre imagery in the editors :( I can understand why a local group MANAGING an import source might not want it generally available, but I think there needs to be a good reason not to? At the end of the day, what we need to decide is what level of accuracy is acceptable, and while I don't think we want to be getting to a level where measurements of OSM can be used to settle property boundary disputes, the information imparted should represent the ground conditions as accurately as possible. I decided against importing buildings from streetview because it IS too far from reality. Claims are being made that the French data is more up to date, but if it is not being properly geo-referenced and is producing poor quality data should it be allowed in? returning to the example, in the absence of evidence that the building IS split into multiple units it SHOULD be drawn as a single entity? And tidying up would mean aligning it with the bing footprint? NONE of the buildings in the vicinity are of a quality that I would be happy to commit at which point I'd like to see the raw data and work out where the problem is. Some buildings are actually quite accurate, so the positioning is good, I get the same on streetview where I KNOW the build has been constructed in the last 5 years! But then the buildings around can be up to 50% off. I moved down to the village below the example building ... Moving this forward ... I think we are getting to a point where 'staging' or 'construction' layers do make sense. And a few of them would also make sense as separately selectable layers in viewers. 'Boundaries', with a complete list of what
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
From: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: Conclusion: A significant number of cadastre imported buildings consist of multiple ways, such as in the example Frederik gave. The difference from other buildings a week old is statistically significant. This is true even if only looking at the subset of buildings that are new buildings. [1]: If anyone doubts this I could carry out an analysis on this point. Paul, could you repeat your analysis where you distinguish polygons tagged building=yes and others tagged building=yes+wall=no (which is our tags to identify non-closed constructions like roof, balcony, shed) ? For the changesets identified: Joined Ways building=* -wall=*: 12695 17594 building=* wall=no:6517 6818 I believe the large difference from sets of ways where some are wall=no and some -wall=* and when combined they simplify farther than either does separately. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
2012/9/27 Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com: Le 27/09/2012 02:22, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : actually it is not only the diagonal line (which is an obvious error), but it is also all or most of the divisions, which don't seem to corrispond at all to real buildings or parts of them (maybe they are property divisions, but then the property in this ensemble is divided quite weird) when confronted with the aerial imagery. Looking at the tags on the polygons, you will find that some of them have a wall=no that canot be seen from aerial. Interesting, I have never heard before of building=yes with wall=no but I found documentation in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wall%3Dno It looks as if there is an overlap with building=roof Frankly I don't find building=yes, wall=no very intuitive, if I get the wiki right, this is used for a series of distinct features like balkonies, constructions without foundations (what do you mean by this? temporary buildings? what does qualify for foundation?) storage sheds and slight constructions (I also don't understand what this means. Do you intend light constructions?). I am particularly opposing the idea to use wall=no for a feature that might have walls but not a roof (balconies), and I do also generally oppose this tag wall=no because of the reasons given above (not intuitive, mixes different classes, sometimes even contradictory). To get this right: I am not opposing the division into several buildings instead of one outline (judging from the bing aerial these are indeed several buildings), but the divisions between those buildings should follow reality (which they apparently don't do at all in the cadastre version). I am aware that this is simply one example, but the way it looks makes me fear that there are lots of similar problems. In this particular case it looks as if manual tracing would be faster than adjusting the vector version. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: buildings should follow reality (which they apparently don't do at all in the cadastre version). How can you say that from an aerial imagery ? It is also possible that the cadastre is outdated. Like any source of contribution, including local survey. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
2012/9/27 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: buildings should follow reality (which they apparently don't do at all in the cadastre version). How can you say that from an aerial imagery ? It is also possible that the cadastre is outdated. Like any source of contribution, including local survey. You are right that I cannot be 100% sure from aerial imagery, but how probable would you think it is that they tore down the whole building complex and reconstructed it split into different volumes but inside the same total volume and shape? Would they have also reconstructed the sheds and anxilliary building parts (if the cadastre is outdated)? How probable are building divisions like in the cadastre version, where there are very narrow buildings without direct access to the street in building which is not particularly wide? From an architects point of view the building partitions don't look real, it would be really strange if they were like this, but you are right that I can't exclude they are really like this, hence the apparently. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Pieren wrote: On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: buildings should follow reality (which they apparently don't do at all in the cadastre version). How can you say that from an aerial imagery ? It is also possible that the cadastre is outdated. Like any source of contribution, including local survey. Pieren Many of the buildings moving away from the one identified simply do not even fit the footprint on the bing imagery and many of the 'divisions' seem to follow the ridge of a building rather than a difference between roof colour. The current blocks simply make no sense! It is not possible from the aerial imagery to identify divisions so unless those divisions are identified by other means ... such as a clear identification in Cadastra ... or better still by local knowledge ... then the building should simply be an outline! Now that I have scanned some of the French material I must say that it is of very low quality and all of the stuff I have reviewed needs at least SOME work to bring it up to a better standard. At best all one can say currently is 'there are some buildings round about here' ... and stripping unsubstantiated detail would at least be a start. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On 27 sept. 2012, at 14:04, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Now that I have scanned some of the French material I must say that it is of very low quality and all of the stuff I have reviewed needs at least SOME work to bring it up to a better standard. At best all one can say currently is 'there are some buildings round about here' ... and stripping unsubstantiated detail would at least be a start. At least the quality of the French Cadastre is way better than, say... Tiger data that was imported almost straight to the base and that is still in most part untouched by OSM contributors ! Vlad. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Hi, I think we should perhaps add a new section in the cadastre documentation: the purpose of the cadastre, and the way it is made. In France you need to ask for a permission from the public authority (the municipalities) before to make a new building. It include a detailed map of what you want to do. This is the map added to the cadastre (at least the local copy), each time an authorisation is asked. So the data in the cadastre is an aggregation of every building map provided by the architects (not always the case). But you are also authorized to build some new extension of a house without to ask permission, if the new build is under a predefined size or kind of building. So, many people are adding new portion of building just at the limit size, that's why we can sometime see small part of building on the cadastre. It can be not visible from the street or aerial imagery, but it is still the reality of the building ! All the wall=no polygon are build on the same kind of rules: you need to ask for an authorization if you build a full house with foundation, but you can do almost what you want if the building as no foundation, especially in the case of agricultural buildings (which seem to be the case of our current example). So if you build something without real wall, or without a roof, it's identified in a different way on the cadastre map. Sylvain 2012/9/27 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk Pieren wrote: On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: buildings should follow reality (which they apparently don't do at all in the cadastre version). How can you say that from an aerial imagery ? It is also possible that the cadastre is outdated. Like any source of contribution, including local survey. Pieren Many of the buildings moving away from the one identified simply do not even fit the footprint on the bing imagery and many of the 'divisions' seem to follow the ridge of a building rather than a difference between roof colour. The current blocks simply make no sense! It is not possible from the aerial imagery to identify divisions so unless those divisions are identified by other means ... such as a clear identification in Cadastra ... or better still by local knowledge ... then the building should simply be an outline! Now that I have scanned some of the French material I must say that it is of very low quality and all of the stuff I have reviewed needs at least SOME work to bring it up to a better standard. At best all one can say currently is 'there are some buildings round about here' ... and stripping unsubstantiated detail would at least be a start. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=**contacthttp://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.**ukhttp://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Many of the buildings moving away from the one identified simply do not even fit the footprint on the bing imagery and many of the 'divisions' seem to follow the ridge of a building rather than a difference between roof colour. The current blocks simply make no sense! It is not possible from the aerial imagery to identify divisions so unless those divisions are identified by other means ... Lester, these building data are coming from permits sent by architects to the tax administration. It is not based on aerial imagery. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
De : Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk Many of the buildings moving away from the one identified simply do not even fit the footprint on the bing imagery ? What make you so sure that the thruth is in imagery and not in cadastre ? particulary considering that Bing is often several year late and that offical french maps (IGN) are also relying on cadastre for building ? There are a lot of examples of places where there are some buiding referenced in cadastre that do not appear in Bing but that you can see IRL. You will decide to remove them because you they are not on Bing or you will trust local contributors that introduce them because they know they are real ? how do you make the difference between the guy that has the knowledge and the one that has not ? Now that I have scanned some of the French material I must say that it is of very low quality and all of the stuff I have reviewed needs at least SOME work to bring it up to a better standard. At best all one can say currently is 'there are some buildings round about here' ... and stripping unsubstantiated detail would at least be a start. According to the way you say that I assume that you have directly check in IRL or perform a comparison with a better quality and reliable source to decide that the wole cadastre is of very low quality... Could you share with us you criteria and methodology to be so affirmative and allow us to determine which details are unsubstantiated ? After all we are just mappers that concentrate on part of world where we are living and that we know, if I remember well this is the base of Openstreetmap crowdsourcing ? Cheers Julien___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Am 27.09.2012 14:25, schrieb Vladimir Vyskocil: On 27 sept. 2012, at 14:04, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Now that I have scanned some of the French material I must say that it is of very low quality and all of the stuff I have reviewed needs at least SOME work to bring it up to a better standard. At best all one can say currently is 'there are some buildings round about here' ... and stripping unsubstantiated detail would at least be a start. At least the quality of the French Cadastre is way better than, say... Tiger data that was imported almost straight to the base and that is still in most part untouched by OSM contributors ! Well at least the Tiger data included further information outside of just geometry and I'm saying that as a well known Tiger import hater. Supposedly the cadastre includes street names and house numbers, however of the 27 million buildings (plus 6 million wall=no) only a minuscule number have further information attached, matter of fact there are more nodes with addresses tagged in France than there are building outlines with house numbers. Why this is the case, I don't know, but house numbers etc. would be of far more immediate benefit to our data than just building outlines. Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Sep 27, 2012, at 2:18 AM, Paul Norman wrote: This is not an example that you only find after a long search; it is a typical cadastre import building. Until you can back up your claim with solid numbers, your claim, more specifically the wordtypical, is just FUD. Furthermore it can hurt many hard working french contributors, who for a single city spent dozens of hours integrating the cadaster into OSM. Time for some numbers then... Detailed data is available upon request. Thanks Paul for taking the time to give some numbers. I don't understand also the technical details but hopefully well enough to provide some feedback that makes sense :) Looking at your examples, I can see that some buildings have a geometry that doesn't seem to be in line with the reality. However, like other persons mentioned here already, the only way to find out if this is OK is to check with a survey. The problem is however real. I know that our french OSM gurus have some checks for the cadaster import, but I don't know if it catches this kind of potential errors. Still, your analysis still doesn't quantify it well enough to entitle it typical. 1 day of data is really not enough to be representative. Also, it's impossible to find automatically if adjacent building ways should be joined or not (wall issue, adjacent but separate buildings…). I am not saying it's not a problem, and I am not saying it's not typical, I am just saying there isn't enough proof to say that yet. A significant number of cadastre imported buildings consist of multiple ways, such as in the example Frederik gave. Could you summarize it in more simple wording and an exact number ? For instance: 10% of the new buildings imported between … and … share some ways with other buildings that have the same tags. Also, I didn't understand who you differentiate the cadaster imports from the rest. Cheers Olivier ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
De : Simon Poole si...@poole.ch Supposedly the cadastre includes street names and house numbers, however of the 27 million buildings (plus 6 million wall=no) only a minuscule number have further information attached, matter of fact there are more nodes with addresses tagged in France than there are building outlines with house numbers. Why this is the case, I don't know, but house numbers etc. would be of far more immediate benefit to our data than just building outlines. Some people put the house number on a node located where there is the building entrace ( and sometimes forgot to tag the entrance) Sometimes there are several house number on big buildings so house number is place on nodes instead of buildings. Some people prefer to place the number where it is located physically, near the street when an house has a long alley A lot of buildings outside cities does not have house number appearing in cadastre. This kind of reason can explain what you are observing Cocerning building outlines it can be usefull for people performing study about urbanisation density etc so there is not one benefit related to one cateogry of data but benefits related to use. Since we started to massively draw building outlines we also observe in France that people put much more POIs because this is very easier to add them when you have the buildings instead of just street because you know nuch more that your baker is just after 3rd building than 23meter after street corner... The main interest of opendata is to allow unexpected usage so IMHO this is an error to decide in advance what has benefit or not for everyone Cheers Julien ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
THEVENON Julien wrote: * *Many of the buildings moving away from the one identified simply do not even fit the footprint on the bing imagery ? What make you so sure that the thruth is in imagery and not in cadastre ? particulary considering that Bing is often several year late and that offical french maps (IGN) are also relying on cadastre for building ? There are a lot of examples of places where there are some buiding referenced in cadastre that do not appear in Bing but that you can see IRL. You will decide to remove them because you they are not on Bing or you will trust local contributors that introduce them because they know they are real ? how do you make the difference between the guy that has the knowledge and the one that has not ? Not having access to the cadastre layer I can't comment on the differences between what has been traced and the source data, but I can SEE a distinct positional difference between the bing layer and the OSM buildings. If there was a general offset, then I would accept that there was simply a referencing error, but the buildings were offset in different directions across the areas I looked at. I also have buildings that do not yet appear on Bing ... no problem with that, but the ones that appear on both SHOULD be in the same place? You have already said that the cadastre data can't be trusted for detail? * *Now that I have scanned some of the French material I must say that it is of very low quality and all of the stuff I have reviewed needs at least SOME work to bring it up to a better standard. * *At best all one can say currently is 'there are some buildings round about here' ... and stripping unsubstantiated detail would at least be a start. According to the way you say that I assume that you have directly check in IRL or perform a comparison with a better quality and reliable source to decide that the wole cadastre is of very low quality... Could you share with us you criteria and methodology to be so affirmative and allow us to determine which details are unsubstantiated ? After all we are just mappers that concentrate on part of world where we are living and that we know, if I remember well this is the base of Openstreetmap crowdsourcing ? http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=44.273069lon=0.500865zoom=18 YES local knowledge is needed to clean the data up, but some of the buildings line up nicely with the image, while others are well offset so if the information was reviewed before importing HOW was it reviewed? Certainly not against what I would refer to as the base location reference? If the cadastre data is providing the fine detail then OK, but I see a lot of what looks like lean-tos and porches identified as separate buildings and strange shapes over what look like rectangular buildings. If this was an area I was working on, then I would have concentrated on the road structure first and then checked on what businesses are present. This allows a safe way of identifying commercial buildings and if they are listed, local house sales help add more detail. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On 27/09/2012 12:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Interesting, I have never heard before of building=yes with wall=no I just had lunch in an Italian restaurant, which I promptly tagged while waiting for my dessert... It happened to be located in a cadastre-imported building in two parts - one of them with wall=no : the part tagged with no wall was an extension of the building, enclosed as a veranda. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Am 27.09.2012 15:03, schrieb THEVENON Julien: * De :* Simon Poole si...@poole.ch * *Supposedly the cadastre includes street names and house numbers, however * *of the 27 million buildings (plus 6 million wall=no) only a minuscule * *number have further information attached, matter of fact there are more * *nodes with addresses tagged in France than there are building outlines * *with house numbers. Why this is the case, I don't know, but house * *numbers etc. would be of far more immediate benefit to our data than * *just building outlines. Some people put the house number on a node located where there is the building entrace ( and sometimes forgot to tag the entrance) Sometimes there are several house number on big buildings so house number is place on nodes instead of buildings. Some people prefer to place the number where it is located physically, near the street when an house has a long alley A lot of buildings outside cities does not have house number appearing in cadastre. This kind of reason can explain what you are observing Just so there is no misunderstanding: even taking address tagged nodes in to account, the addresses / houses ratio is lower and at best not different than in other countries without countrywide access to cadastre-like sources. 3% with nodes, 0.6% without, comparision CH: 18% / 12%. The numbers are from the respective taginfo instances. So the question remains why the information in not being added to the outlines. Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
At least in my country, address is tied to lot parcels and not to individual buildings. And since we dont have parcel data, we add housenumber as nodes. Maning Sambale (mobile) On Sep 27, 2012 9:32 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Am 27.09.2012 15:03, schrieb THEVENON Julien: * De :* Simon Poole si...@poole.ch si...@poole.ch * *Supposedly the cadastre includes street names and house numbers, however * *of the 27 million buildings (plus 6 million wall=no) only a minuscule * *number have further information attached, matter of fact there are more * *nodes with addresses tagged in France than there are building outlines * *with house numbers. Why this is the case, I don't know, but house * *numbers etc. would be of far more immediate benefit to our data than * *just building outlines. Some people put the house number on a node located where there is the building entrace ( and sometimes forgot to tag the entrance) Sometimes there are several house number on big buildings so house number is place on nodes instead of buildings. Some people prefer to place the number where it is located physically, near the street when an house has a long alley A lot of buildings outside cities does not have house number appearing in cadastre. This kind of reason can explain what you are observing Just so there is no misunderstanding: even taking address tagged nodes in to account, the addresses / houses ratio is lower and at best not different than in other countries without countrywide access to cadastre-like sources. 3% with nodes, 0.6% without, comparision CH: 18% / 12%. The numbers are from the respective taginfo instances. So the question remains why the information in not being added to the outlines. Simon ___ 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] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On 27/09/2012 15:29, Simon Poole wrote: Just so there is no misunderstanding: even taking address tagged nodes in to account, the addresses / houses ratio is lower and at best not different than in other countries without countrywide access to cadastre-like sources. 3% with nodes, 0.6% without, comparision CH: 18% / 12%. The numbers are from the respective taginfo instances. So the question remains why the information in not being added to the outlines. Because the cadastre work is an armchair mapping process whereas the address tagging requires local survey. They are often done by two different type of contributors. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
2012/9/27 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: Just so there is no misunderstanding: even taking address tagged nodes in to account, the addresses / houses ratio is lower and at best not different than in other countries without countrywide access to cadastre-like sources. 3% with nodes, 0.6% without, comparision CH: 18% / 12%. The numbers are from the respective taginfo instances. So the question remains why the information in not being added to the outlines. Addresses are not extracted (yet) from the vector cadastre data. Adding them is done 100% manually except when other opendata sets are available (Nantes metropole has just been finished with 400.000+ addresses added if I'm not wrong). We have the cadastre JOSM plugin who helps adding addresses manually using the cadastre WMS layer in the background. I manually added thousands of addresses that way, on both WMS vector based cadastre and raster one (more difficult to read). -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
De :Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org Because the cadastre work is an armchair mapping process whereas the address tagging requires local survey. They are often done by two different type of contributors. On top of that as the cadastre distinguish light buildings and buildings, house with terrasses and veranda etc are represented by several buildings but there is still a single house number ( if it exists ) Cheers Julien ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Joakim Fors wrote: Not having access to the cadastre layer I can't comment on the differences between what has been traced and the source data, but I can SEE a distinct positional difference between the bing layer and the OSM buildings. If there was a general offset, then I would accept that there was simply a referencing error, but the buildings were offset in different directions across the areas I looked at. I also have buildings that do not yet appear on Bing ... no problem with that, but the ones that appear on both SHOULD be in the same place? You have already said that the cadastre data can't be trusted for detail? A lot of times Bing imagery is distorted in different directions in a small area. Quite easy to see in some places where you have access to very precise ortho imagery or vector data to compare with. For example in Lund where we get ortho imagery from the municpality; Here the Bing layer is distorted in different directions just a few blocks apart… not to mention that the Bing imagery is quite a few years older. Same with some vector data that muncipalities in the region have provided to OSM where it is easy to see that Bing imagery is quite inaccurate. Sorry but I do not see any problem with the bing imagery in the area I identified. I moved up to 'Prayssas' being the first identifiable location I found, and I find it very strange that someone has imported a lot of buildings without any reference to roads to access them. I could understand if these buildings were then used to add the missing roads, but I've found no problem with the location of imagery against other sources in the UK so you would have to provide some pretty good evidence that the imagery around 'Prayssas' is distorted! I am used to the way building heights affect the ground plan, but if anything, the buildings are offset OVER the missing roads. The church looks nice, but google streetview only seems to cover the outer ring road :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: So the question remains why the information in not being added to the outlines. Because the cadastre work is an armchair mapping process whereas the address tagging requires local survey. They are often done by two different type of contributors. Armchair mapping via the bing imagery is just as rewarding, you just don't get the false 'pleasure' of uploading thousands of entities at a time. But it IS much more satisfying seeing OSM update an area you have just worked on with a lot of missing roads, footpaths and the like. I accept that this does take a little practice, and needs clean images, but France would benefit from a few 'cadastre' importers filling other details in the areas they are importing :( Personally I would not be happy if *I* had uploaded some of the areas I'm looking at ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On 27/09/2012 16:07, Lester Caine wrote: France would benefit from a few 'cadastre' importers filling other details in the areas they are importing :( In that you agree with most of the opinions expressed on the French list : contributors using the cadastre generally add other details at the same time, which is one of the reasons why they find using two different accounts inconvenient. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
2012/9/27 THEVENON Julien julien_theve...@yahoo.fr: De : Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org Because the cadastre work is an armchair mapping process whereas the address tagging requires local survey. They are often done by two different type of contributors. On top of that as the cadastre distinguish light buildings and buildings, house with terrasses and veranda etc are represented by several buildings but there is still a single house number ( if it exists ) +1, usually (at least in some cities I checked) housenumbers are identifying a whole parcel (exceptions exist), IMHO better then assigning them to a single house as Simon suggested it would be to add them to the whole parcel (I guess you have these also available in France, haven't you? In the end that's what a cadastre is about...) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: In that you agree with most of the opinions expressed on the French list : contributors using the cadastre generally add other details at the same time, which is one of the reasons why they find using two different accounts inconvenient. Maybe it's a work in progress: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.99103lon=0.33956zoom=15layers=M Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
De : SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk Maybe it's a work in progress: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.99103lon=0.33956zoom=15layers=M Or there are some people that think this is a good way to highlight where some roads are missing. Personnaly I prefer to draw roads and building at the same time to have more complete maps Cheers Julien ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
De : Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com +1, usually (at least in some cities I checked) housenumbers are identifying a whole parcel (exceptions exist), IMHO better then assigning them to a single house as Simon suggested it would be to add them to the whole parcel (I guess you have these also available in France, haven't you? In the end that's what a cadastre is about...) In French cadastre you normally have a number for each parcel ( that we do not put in OSM ) House number is something different and only some parcel contains buildings associated to house numbers ( 0, 1 or more ). Cheers Julien ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On 27/09/2012 16:28, SomeoneElse wrote: Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: In that you agree with most of the opinions expressed on the French list : contributors using the cadastre generally add other details at the same time, which is one of the reasons why they find using two different accounts inconvenient. Maybe it's a work in progress: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.99103lon=0.33956zoom=15layers=M Without the isolated clusters of buildings, how would you know that some important roads are missing ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Without the isolated clusters of buildings, how would you know that some important roads are missing ? Visiting the village and walking around it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On 27/09/2012 16:45, SomeoneElse wrote: Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Without the isolated clusters of buildings, how would you know that some important roads are missing ? Visiting the village and walking around it? Are we now reaching the crux of this discussion ? Do you believe that local survey is a requirement for mapping ? I don't and I back my position with all the places I have mapped without having visited them - I'm curious about what criticism you'll express about the quality of my work. If the opposition to mapping with the assistance of cadastral data is grounded in opposition to the principle of remote mapping, then we have a problem - and maybe you should talk to everyone who uses some provider of orbital imagery in the source tag. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Visiting the village and walking around it? This village is named Condom. That's probably why you remember it and forward this example from time to time. Would you come if we organize a mapping party at Condom ? (I said mapping party). But hey, the village is mapped. We just miss the access to all isolated dwellings around. I'm sure in UK, all accesses to isolated dwellings are already mapped. Like here : http://osm.org/go/eujKAYlx3- Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: France would benefit from a few 'cadastre' importers filling other details in the areas they are importing :( In that you agree with most of the opinions expressed on the French list : contributors using the cadastre generally add other details at the same time, which is one of the reasons why they find using two different accounts inconvenient. Now that the rest of the world understand what is going on, then I think I can understand the problem now! I would STILL expect someone doing a bulk import of raw data from cadastre without adding any 'value' so be identified and to be honest most of the data I've looked at falls in that category! I've not found ANY additional data on the buildings. If I was involved in managing this, then to be honest I'd be considering wiping it again. I've done that in the past against OS 'imports' that have not been well done, and I've avoided importing stuff myself BECAUSE correcting it against the imagery would take too long. I think what we are saying here is that this does need a bit more 'hand holding' of the people contributing. The 'two accounts' is a bit of red herring here - in my opinion - but similarly JUST uploading buildings is pointless? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: In that you agree with most of the opinions expressed on the French list : contributors using the cadastre generally add other details at the same time, which is one of the reasons why they find using two different accounts inconvenient. Maybe it's a work in progress: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.99103lon=0.33956zoom=15layers=M Without the isolated clusters of buildings, how would you know that some important roads are missing ? Looking at the imagery or some other source if you are an arm chair mapper, or driving around with the GPS tracker if you want a run in the country. THEN adding buildings using the other sources. Even just looking at what is available on potlatch for France, there is sufficient 'missing' detail to keep many people busy, and raw imports of cadastre to my mind are not helping! They should just be used to add a little more detail when appropriate? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Pieren wrote: Visiting the village and walking around it? This village is named Condom. That's probably why you remember it and forward this example from time to time. Would you come if we organize a mapping party at Condom ? (I said mapping party). But hey, the village is mapped. We just miss the access to all isolated dwellings around. I'm sure in UK, all accesses to isolated dwellings are already mapped. Like here :http://osm.org/go/eujKAYlx3- Now that is a cheap dig ;) The buildings are not traced either, but are present on streetview, however the absence of a track on streetview would indicate that this is a private driveway and probably gated access. At the present time it is NOT common practice to add driveways unless they access more than one property or are open to the public. Now if you think that we should add ever driveway then I'd be quite happy to include that in my workflow :) In this case it would need a local survey to ascertain access rights. We do not assume that where there is no data available. Further west you will find that the firing ranges on Salisbury plains have some gaps as well :) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
2012/9/27 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk If I was involved in managing this, then to be honest I'd be considering wiping it again. Then I am glad you are not involved in it, because it would be a serious case of vandalism. This would be totally unjustified to wipe such a valid geographic information because it lacks a few tags that can be added later by other people. OSM is a collaborative and iterative map. If you think uploading buildings is pointless, then don't upload buildings. But that's not a reason to prevent other people to do so. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
De : Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk Looking at the imagery or some other source if you are an arm chair mapper, or driving around with the GPS tracker if you want a run in the country. THEN adding buildings using the other sources. Even just looking at what is available on potlatch for France, there is sufficient 'missing' detail to keep many people busy, and raw imports of cadastre to my mind are not helping! They should just be used to add a little more detail when appropriate? Every people contribute for their own reason and so have their own priorities... some cares about roads some not, some care about the world with low detail level, some care about small region micro-mapped Cheers Julien___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
De : Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk The 'two accounts' is a bit of red herring here - in my opinion - but similarly JUST uploading buildings is pointless? Not at all. This is the heart of the problem for a lot of french contributors !!! as already mentionned raw building import is the expection but you are focus on it. For major part of French contributors we are adding buildings and other details not related to cadastre, so having one account per kind of edit will be really painfull.. but it it will not be for people that just perform raw building imports ! This is the real problem for us. We are also discussing a French Cadastre Task force to avoid raw building import withtout needed corrections but this is an other topic Cheers Julien___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Are we now reaching the crux of this discussion ? Do you believe that local survey is a requirement for mapping ? I don't and I back my position with all the places I have mapped without having visited them - I'm curious about what criticism you'll express about the quality of my work. If the opposition to mapping with the assistance of cadastral data is grounded in opposition to the principle of remote mapping, then we have a problem - and maybe you should talk to everyone who uses some provider of orbital imagery in the source tag. Actually, I think that on-the-ground mapping and the use of aerial imagery / cadastre data are complementary. There are many things that you'd miss if you used one exclusively at the expense of the other. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Le 27/09/2012 16:28, SomeoneElse a écrit : Maybe it's a work in progress: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.99103lon=0.33956zoom=15layers=M Cheers, Andy OSM is a work in progress. -- FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Without the isolated clusters of buildings, how would you know that some important roads are missing ? Visiting the village and walking around it? Are we now reaching the crux of this discussion ? Do you believe that local survey is a requirement for mapping ? I don't and I back my position with all the places I have mapped without having visited them - I'm curious about what criticism you'll express about the quality of my work. There is a certain level of accuracy that can be achieved as an armchair mapper and there is certainly a lot more detail that can be added world wide using just the material currently available. I was very tempted to 'tidy up' one of the French areas as an example and I may yet do that, but there is more than enough work still to do in my local area. AND only local access allows me to correct the mistakes in the 'official' data. If the opposition to mapping with the assistance of cadastral data is grounded in opposition to the principle of remote mapping, then we have a problem - and maybe you should talk to everyone who uses some provider of orbital imagery in the source tag. I'd certainly appreciate it if the editors automatically added 'source:trace=xxx' where I'm using a particular background layer - heck I forget to ADD the tag most of the time! With regards data, one needs to know the limits of it's accuracy. I know that some streetview data is 40 years old. I can even identify the map it originally came from, so it has to be a judgement if I use it. The positional accuracy of the cadastral data is what I am questioning. Either someone says 'this is our reference' and we ignore the differences to other imagery, or it gets tidied up and the obvious flaws such as extra diagonal lines are removed. I get the impression that this is a process that should be happening but not everybody is 'complying', so something needs to be done to re-educate those mappers to the 'assistance' element over the 'just copy raw' activity? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Actually, I think that on-the-ground mapping and the use of aerial imagery / cadastre data are complementary. There are many things that you'd miss if you used one exclusively at the expense of the other. Yes - and local surveyors being the bottleneck resource, we better do as much as we can remotely so that they can focus on adding the critical value that comes from their local knowledge. Today as I added the Italian restaurant where I was having lunch, I was happy to find that buildings were already there - with reference to them it was very easy to add the restaurant and the customer's parking... I would have done a worse job without. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
2012/9/27 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: +1, usually (at least in some cities I checked) housenumbers are identifying a whole parcel (exceptions exist), IMHO better then assigning them to a single house as Simon suggested it would be to add them to the whole parcel (I guess you have these also available in France, haven't you? In the end that's what a cadastre is about...) There is no 1-1 link between parcels and addresses as there is no 1-1 link between buildings and addresses. Parcels, buildings and addresses are 3 completely different things in France. -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 04:59:27PM +0100, THEVENON Julien wrote: For major part of French contributors we are adding buildings and other details not related to cadastre, so having one account per kind of edit will be really painfull.. but it it will not be for people that just perform raw building imports ! I don't know which data you have been looking at, but let's ask Nominatim, shall we? For France we have: raw buildings indexed27337552 other objects indexed 3799339 --- Total number of objects indexed31136891 Objects are real word objects here: highways, pois, boundaries etc. In other words, for 7 imported buildings you manage to map one non-cadastre object. So indeed, I would agree that French contributors do map other details. Occasionally. Very. Occasionally. [referring to separate import accounts] This is the real problem for us. For the sake of completeness: planetwide there are currently 152 million objects. Which means 1/6th of the planet consists of French buildings. Now, there is a real problem. Whatever use all those balconies, patios and swimming pools might have in the future, right now in the present the cadastre import has become a major nuissance for anybody who wants to use OSM data. It wastes lots of bandwidth and CPU time. If it wasn't for the cadastre imports, we'd still be able to keep the 32bit id space for nodes for another year or two, which would save a lot of hard disk space for a lot of people. Just some food for thought. Now please don't let me stop you from continuing to complain about how all those import rules make your life so much harder. Sarah ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
sh == Sarah Hoffmann lon...@denofr.de writes: sh Objects are real word objects here: highways, pois, boundaries etc. sh In other words, for 7 imported buildings you manage to map one sh non-cadastre object. So indeed, I would agree that French sh contributors do map other details. sh Occasionally. Very. Occasionally. This is an interesting point of view. How many buildings do you think there are on an average street in France? Fewer than for an average street in the USA, certainly, but likely more than 7. sh Whatever use all those balconies, patios and swimming pools might sh have in the future, right now in the present the cadastre import sh has become a major nuissance for anybody who wants to use OSM data. sh It wastes lots of bandwidth and CPU time. If it wasn't for the sh cadastre imports, we'd still be able to keep the 32bit id space sh for nodes for another year or two, which would save a lot of hard sh disk space for a lot of people. Amazingly, bandwidth and hard disk space per euro are increasing faster than these lazy French cadastre importers can pollute the database ... Which isn't to say that buildingless planet extracts might be useful to some people. -- Eric Marsden ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Le 27/09/2012 09:49, Lester Caine a écrit : Claims are being made that the French data is more up to date, but if it is not being properly geo-referenced and is producing poor quality data should it be allowed in? returning to the example, in the absence of evidence that the building IS split into multiple units it SHOULD be drawn as a single entity? What is the unit ? Something used for 3D drawing ? Something used for statistics ? Something used for a purpose I don't even imagine ? And tidying up would mean aligning it with the bing footprint? Sometimes the Cadastre is better than Bing, Sometimes Bing is better... We have the chance to have put in OSM a network of survey points. It is our best reference... but hard to use for newbies... -- FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
De : Sarah Hoffmann lon...@denofr.de Hi Sarah, Sorry for this late response and hope to make debate less passionate. I don't know which data you have been looking at, but let's ask Nominatim, shall we? Great idea, this is always good to discuss about facts Ok, so by example could you extract stats from Grenoble instead of whole France ? I thinks this quite representative of cities where there are buildings and quite a lot of details. Concerning discussions about separated accounts I`m sure that there is a good reason behind that but it was perhaps decided for cases that do not match French one. What we are trying to do here is to discuss to understand why this rule has been done ( that's why we are asking for a list of issues that import Guidelines Rules want to address ) and if it is possible to find a solution both satisfy the goal you have and that do not create problems for good-will french mapppers that spend time to perform clean cadastre integration. I`m convinced ( or at least I hope )that you don`t create this rule to make French mappers crazy. Concerning the waste of bandwidth and CPU, the nuisance for people who want to use OSM data I understand the problem but I guess it will come even without cadastre because due to Open Data mouvment there will certainly more and more big data sources to integrate. There is certainly something to do also with tools or database schematic perhaps to optimise this kind of issues but agains I think that cadastre is the thing that put the light on the problem but is not the direct cause of the problem. We are mapping the world and I think this quite surprising to have only 32 bits id ( I face this kind of problems in my professional life with long microelectronics simulations ) but this is certainly due to good reasons when it has been designed and I understand the issue you mention. So if cadastre building integration create technical issues like too many disk space usage or lack of technical solutions to solve the issue you mention I would prefer that you say that clearly and ask to stop cadastre import until there is a solution rather than saying use separated accounts or things like that won't solve your issue. I`m really happy that you mention a technical problem and something concrete to explain clearly one part of the problem and I thinks that Fench community is able to understand this kind of problematic. Thanks for your food for thought and I hope that we will succeed to reach a solution Cheers Julien___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Sarah Hoffmann lon...@denofr.de wrote: for 7 imported buildings you manage to map one non-cadastre object. As Eric said, I find the ratio quite good. I would be interested by the ratio buldings/non buildings in Germany (your email is German). As I understood, it is acceptable to have 100 Germans tracing 10 buildings from Bing but not 1 lazy French importing 1000 buildings from the Cadastre. Even if the quality is questionable in both cases. So indeed, I would agree that French contributors do map other details. Occasionally. Very. Occasionally. Indecent for all contributors editing in France (incl. many foreigners) and not importing buildings. No more comments about so much ignorance. For the sake of completeness: planetwide there are currently 152 million objects. Which means 1/6th of the planet consists of French buildings. Now, there is a real problem. It was a time where TIGER data took half of the database (if I remember correctly). Then the ratio declined. It will be the same for French buildings. Germans are also massively adding buildings but by hand (is it not also imported sometimes ?). It's just a matter of time until Germans will exceed the French on this. Will you be happy to read now the German buildings is a real problem because it takes 1/6th or 1/7th of the planet ? It wastes lots of bandwidth and CPU time. Again the same arguments we have seen years ago from those against imports in general. Nothing new. And for data consumers, they can filter by tags or areas if they wish. If it wasn't for the cadastre imports, we'd still be able to keep the 32bit id space for nodes for another year or two, which would save a lot of hard disk space for a lot of people. The 64 bits transition is done now at the same time as the full re-import due to the relicensing which, I guess, is a good coincidence. Now please don't let me stop you from continuing to complain about how all those import rules make your life so much harder. ...hmm, not sure about this sentence ... but I don't think the guidelines have been created with the intention of making our life much harder. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Vincent Pottier wrote: Claims are being made that the French data is more up to date, but if it is not being properly geo-referenced and is producing poor quality data should it be allowed in? returning to the example, in the absence of evidence that the building IS split into multiple units it SHOULD be drawn as a single entity? What is the unit ? Something used for 3D drawing ? Something used for statistics ? Something used for a purpose I don't even imagine ? And tidying up would mean aligning it with the bing footprint? Sometimes the Cadastre is better than Bing, Sometimes Bing is better... We have the chance to have put in OSM a network of survey points. It is our best reference... but hard to use for newbies... A lot of work was done making the imagery position accurate and we need something as a reference point? DETAILS such as the layout of a church do require more information than can be discerned just from the imagery and data such as from Cadastre may well contain more detail, but personally I still need some better proof that there are problems with the positional detail of the imagery? I have not found any problems in the UK when comparing between different sources. And the shape of buildings I looked at in France where in places very much different to adjacent buildings which matched the imagery :( ( I was trying to use Google to take a walk around the church so I could see the buttresses - I have to admit to using it in the UK to remind me of details like that which I've not recorded properly, and certainly that level of detail is missing on streetview ) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
From: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre 2012/9/27 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: Just so there is no misunderstanding: even taking address tagged nodes in to account, the addresses / houses ratio is lower and at best not different than in other countries without countrywide access to cadastre-like sources. 3% with nodes, 0.6% without, comparision CH: 18% / 12%. The numbers are from the respective taginfo instances. So the question remains why the information in not being added to the outlines. Addresses are not extracted (yet) from the vector cadastre data. Adding them is done 100% manually except when other opendata sets are available (Nantes metropole has just been finished with 400.000+ addresses added if I'm not wrong). We have the cadastre JOSM plugin who helps adding addresses manually using the cadastre WMS layer in the background. I manually added thousands of addresses that way, on both WMS vector based cadastre and raster one (more difficult to read). I've been wondering, is there a listing of the different type of objects that are in the cadastre import (as consulted on with imports@ and the local community)? Obviously buildings are part of it, but is there a list of what else? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Sep 26, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Christian Quest wrote: The OSM data is extracted from PDF vector data. To be exhaustive, I have to mention that this is true only for cities that have a vector cadaster. Some cities (10% as an order of magnitude) have only a raster cadaster, in which case the mapper has to draw all the nodes and points manually. That has been my case until now, and I wonder if this is considered as an import, as meant in the guideline. If yes, then even drawing over bing or other imagery material would be an import too. I guess it's not wanted. If no, it doesn't make any sense to me that a vector based process for the cadaster is an import, and a raster based is not. Everything is the same : kind of data, license, provider… There seems to be a contradiction there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Olivier Croquette m...@ocroquette.de wrote: If no, it doesn't make any sense to me that a vector based process for the cadaster is an import, and a raster based is not. Everything is the same : kind of data, license, provider… There seems to be a contradiction there. Yes, this is something of a contradiction or edge case. May I offer, from my perspective, an important difference between tracing over raster, and copy / pasting vectors? You say: Some cities (10% as an order of magnitude) have only a raster cadaster, in which case the mapper has to draw all the nodes and points manually. I think that drawing all of the nodes and points manually is an important difference, from a quality point of view. Each node or way that you draw by hand, is carefully considered and placed, one at a time. It isn't perfect; nothing is. I suggest that this leads to a kind of automatic quality control, as the nodes and ways are placed. The goal of the vector import procedure is similar, use data from this area, reconcile it carefully, include it in OpenStreetMap. The intention is very good. But in execution, it is easier to miss a node or way (or more than one) that needs to be refined before upload. Again, it isn't perfect; nothing is. When you are considering hundreds or thousands of nodes and ways at once, it becomes time consuming to check them all. I hope that you'll find the above to be easy to agree with. My conclusion, is this. The quality of the hand drawn nodes and ways will be better because when we draw the nodes and ways by hand they get more individual attention and care than when we start with a group of nodes and ways from another file. So that's why I think that it is different to trace by hand, vs. vector import. But what about the rules and edge cases? I consider what you describe as the raster process to be an import when the quantity of data is large. The raster process relies on an external data source for a large quantity of information. If that source is used without considering additional data sources, I think that the classification as import is very clear. On the other hand, I think that if the quantity of data is small, if multiple sources are considered with appropriate weight, and if local knowledge or an in-person survey is included as well? Then the description might be closer to really good mapping. You ask what is the difference between the raster process and tracing from aerial imagery alone. Good question. We haven't to this point considered aerial tracing to be an import, but perhaps we should. Perhaps the reason that tracing aerial imagery is not-an-import is because it is transformative in a more obvious way? Tracing aerial imagery transforms from a (rectified and positioned) picture of the real world, to a vectorized and tagged abstraction. Tracing the raster procedure, if I understand it correctly, transforms from a raster version of one vectorized and tagged abstraction to second vectorized and tagged abstraction. I'd like to repeat here, something that I've said elsewhere. I think that the stated goal of the cadastre process, as I understand it, is admirable. The idea that data from an external source can not be contributed to OSM until it has been merged with full consideration of existing data and (all) other available sources, seems exactly the right approach. I hope that this requirement is adopted more widely. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Sep 26, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Richard Weait wrote: I think that drawing all of the nodes and points manually is an important difference, from a quality point of view. Each node or way that you draw by hand, is carefully considered and placed, one at a time. It isn't perfect; nothing is. I suggest that this leads to a kind of automatic quality control, as the nodes and ways are placed. Hi Richard, I agree that it's an important difference, but you can see it also the other way around : since the the raster based process is manual, it's more error prone. For instance, it's easy to forget a building, a street, misinterpret the image, forget to set a tag (name, source…), introduce inaccuracies of a few meter, not to mention that some raster maps are not geo-referenced (or badly). I have been there :-) So the 2 processes have different sources of errors, and as you say, only a careful and manual review can provide the quality we all except. This point is clearly made on the french pages on the Wiki. My conclusion, is this. The quality of the hand drawn nodes and ways will be better because when we draw the nodes and ways by hand they get more individual attention and care than when we start with a group of nodes and ways from another file. I don't agree there. The 2 processes have different errors, but it's hard to say that one is globally better than the other (in terms of quality). I consider what you describe as the raster process to be an import when the quantity of data is large. The raster process relies on an external data source for a large quantity of information. If that source is used without considering additional data sources, I think that the classification as import is very clear. Yes, I agree. But it doesn't pertain to the normal cadaster import process, because no one is supposed to import from the cadaster only. The wiki is really clear about that (french only, sorry): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cadastre_Fran%C3%A7ais/Import_dans_OSM#Qualit.C3.A9_des_donn.C3.A9es And what I have seen this is the way mappers work too. On the other hand, I think that if the quantity of data is small, if multiple sources are considered with appropriate weight, and if local knowledge or an in-person survey is included as well? Then the description might be closer to really good mapping. You are describing 2 ends of a scale very well. Currently we are in-between, but nearer to the second one, because we have multiple sources (uploaded GPS tracks, Bing, existing OSM data, and usually the mapper's own GPS tracks and knowledge). The point is that with the time, we tend to go even further in the direction of the second one, because more and more data is available in the OSM database and we tend to get more sources, not less. NB: just FYI and completeness: there are actually 25% of the maps vectorized according to this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cadastre_Fran%C3%A7ais ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Hi, On 26.09.2012 19:44, Richard Weait wrote: I think that drawing all of the nodes and points manually is an important difference, from a quality point of view. Each node or way that you draw by hand, is carefully considered and placed, one at a time. It isn't perfect; nothing is. I suggest that this leads to a kind of automatic quality control, as the nodes and ways are placed. To give an example, look at this imported building http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/funnybuilding.png Note how the main building consists of 8 separate parts plus a strange diagonal line, and note how the smallest parts are just about 2 metres wide. Compare to the aerial image: http://binged.it/UuYSio A very careful tracer of the aerial image might indeed have created more than just one shape for this, but there is hardly anything there on the imagery that suggests *such* a complex edifice. This is not an example that you only find after a long search; it is a typical cadastre import building. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Frederik Ramm wrote: I think that drawing all of the nodes and points manually is an important difference, from a quality point of view. Each node or way that you draw by hand, is carefully considered and placed, one at a time. It isn't perfect; nothing is. I suggest that this leads to a kind of automatic quality control, as the nodes and ways are placed. To give an example, look at this imported building http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/funnybuilding.png Note how the main building consists of 8 separate parts plus a strange diagonal line, and note how the smallest parts are just about 2 metres wide. Compare to the aerial image: http://binged.it/UuYSio A very careful tracer of the aerial image might indeed have created more than just one shape for this, but there is hardly anything there on the imagery that suggests *such* a complex edifice. This is not an example that you only find after a long search; it is a typical cadastre import building. Now that I understand what is going on, I can see where some off the 'extra' lines come from, and the diagonal is probably due to a boundary detail from changing sheets. However while the source has two different shades of block for buildings, I don't think they can be used at this stage to provide useful extra lines. The process that is extracting the vectors should further process the data so that each block IS a single continuous outline? Later comparison will then be easier as long as say 90% of the area matches the previous instance? Of cause simply importing thousands of these objects without a visual check of every one of them is something completely different to hand tracing every one of them. I'd prefer that there was some cross check that objects have been verified. And in my book, having to manually select objects to import would provide that check? So I'd block any area select function, so that hundreds of objects can't simply be picked and pushed? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
De : Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To give an example, look at this imported building http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/funnybuilding.png Note how the main building consists of 8 separate parts plus a strange diagonal line, and note how the smallest parts are just about 2 metres wide. Compare to the aerial image: http://binged.it/UuYSio A very careful tracer of the aerial image might indeed have created more than just one shape for this, but there is hardly anything there on the imagery that suggests *such* a complex edifice. This is not an example that you only find after a long search; it is a typical cadastre import building. It could also have been done by a guy manually drawing on top of cadastre without cross check with aerial imagery...(Ok it will make a smaller volume if manually done) In any way using a separated account or add some tags will not prevent this case. Do you think it will make their detection easier ? Cheers Julien___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
On Sep 26, 2012, at 8:13 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 26.09.2012 19:44, Richard Weait wrote: I think that drawing all of the nodes and points manually is an important difference, from a quality point of view. Each node or way that you draw by hand, is carefully considered and placed, one at a time. It isn't perfect; nothing is. I suggest that this leads to a kind of automatic quality control, as the nodes and ways are placed. To give an example, look at this imported building http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/funnybuilding.png http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/182524106 A very careful tracer of the aerial image might indeed have created more than just one shape for this, but there is hardly anything there on the imagery that suggests *such* a complex edifice. It's clearly a blind import, that has already been detected and mentioned on the talk-fr list. It's bad. Side note: we have here another big difference between raster and vector imports. Vector can easily be imported quick and dirty, raster can't be quick, but it can be dirty (typical example: bad geo referencing). But it doesn't say anything about the quality of vector vs. raster imports *when done correctly*. And if you assume that the contributors generally work incorrectly, then no guideline will help, only hard quality gates and review processes will. But that's not the OSM spirit. This is not an example that you only find after a long search; it is a typical cadastre import building. Until you can back up your claim with solid numbers, your claim, more specifically the wordtypical, is just FUD. Furthermore it can hurt many hard working french contributors, who for a single city spent dozens of hours integrating the cadaster into OSM. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
De : Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk Now that I understand what is going on, I can see where some off the 'extra' lines come from, and the diagonal is probably due to a boundary detail from changing sheets. This is more often due to split of landuse ownership. There is no differences between this lines and the one separating adajacent buildings However while the source has two different shades of block for buildings. I don't think they can be used at this stage to provide useful extra lines. The process that is extracting the vectors should further process the data so that each block IS a single continuous outline? Later comparison will then be easier as long as say 90% of the area matches the previous instance? No this is not sufficiant I think because some times you have adjacent buildings that are not a single building. You also have cases when line separate building parts which have different number of levels or which are light buildings ( without wall by example ) Of cause simply importing thousands of these objects without a visual check of every one of them is something completely different to hand tracing every one of them. I'd prefer that there was some cross check that objects have been verified. And in my book, having to manually select objects to import would provide that check? So I'd block any area select function, so that hundreds of objects can't simply be picked and pushed? Please also notice that this is sometime not easy to distinguish on aerial imagery if the split line really exist or not. Cheers Julien___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
THEVENON Julien wrote: * De :* Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk * *Now that I understand what is going on, I can see where some off the 'extra' lines come from, and the diagonal is probably due to a boundary detail from changing sheets. This is more often due to split of landuse ownership. There is no differences between this lines and the one separating adajacent buildings * *However while the source has two different shades of block for buildings. **I don't think they can be used at this stage to provide useful extra lines. **The process that is extracting the vectors should further process the data so that each block IS a single continuous outline? **Later comparison will then be easier as long as say 90% of the area matches the previous instance? No this is not sufficiant I think because some times you have adjacent buildings that are not a single building. You also have cases when line separate building parts which have different number of levels or which are light buildings ( without wall by example ) Looking at the source material, there is nothing which can be used to separate the blocks displayed into separate buildings, and since we have no means of identifying different levels of building, adding 'detail' for that seems pointless? All that can be 'accurately' extracted from the source material is that there is a 'block' of buildings? So if you are not actually surveying the buildings and identifying individual buildings, then normal practice is to draw a single box. Frederik's example is the sort of thing that SHOULD have been tidied up before importing! * *Of cause simply importing thousands of these objects without a visual check of every one of them is something completely different to hand tracing every one of them. * *I'd prefer that there was some cross check that objects have been verified. * *And in my book, having to manually select objects to import would provide that check? * *So I'd block any area select function, so that hundreds of objects can't simply be picked and pushed? Please also notice that this is sometime not easy to distinguish on aerial imagery if the split line really exist or not. Hand tracing hundreds of individual elements and not committing them often does not make sense. What I am talking about here is selecting hundreds of vectors from a file without checking them, and having to select each individually would help the checking process. Then perhaps the sort of questionable mapping demonstrated would not happen? Personally I would prefer to see http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/funnybuilding.png as a single closed outline box. If the vectors are not providing closed objects then there is something wrong with the data anyway and in my book it should not be allowed to be imported? With a decent editor, one should be able to select the outline of a block and simply import that ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
To Richard, I've seen examples where manually tracing over raster images has been done roughly and quickly. It's not a guarantee of quality. You are saying that it's time consuming to check data from external source and probably more accurate to trace manually over raster images. But it is also time consuming to draw manually building polygons, much more time consuming. And if you do the job carefully the final result in OSM is normally identical in both cases. I don't know where you leave Richard but if, let say, one of the next SOTM is happening in Berlin, you will probably have the choice between the plane, the car, the bike or your feet. Will you prefer to walk and arrive 10 years later or fly during 2 hours ? Instead of spending hours and hours in copying polygons, we have better time to cross-check the data with other sources, improve tagging and fix other mistakes. For the same amount of time, the final result in OSM will be much better if you take the vector data. To Frederik, In your example, I agree with you that the diagonal line is a glitch, most probably coming from a parcel line just underneath. Our guideline asks to fix them before the upload but it's not always done. When I see one, I just fix it. This is the way how OSM works. Your second point is about indoor details. Myself, I'm also in favour of more simplicity e.g. one polygon per address. But who is able to decide the level of details on the map ? I started with blank areas five years ago and I also said forget the buildings. Now we have people modeling houses in 3d, mapping indoor and tagging draught beers. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Hi, Le 26/09/2012 19:44, Richard Weait a écrit : I think that drawing all of the nodes and points manually is an important difference, from a quality point of view. Each node or way that you draw by hand, is carefully considered and placed, one at a time. It isn't perfect; nothing is. I suggest that this leads to a kind of automatic quality control, as the nodes and ways are placed. You may draw carefully and at the wrong place at the same time. Drawing manually is not a guaranty of right geometry. I (and many others in France) used to draw buildings manually before june 2010 and the start of the buildings-as-osm-files availability. This is time consuming and a pain for both your eyes and wrist and fingers (and mouse too :-) ). So I can't believe that after 30 minutes of such drawing your accuracy is still at the top. On the other side as explained by Christian, raw .osm files for buildings are directly taken frow a vector source. When we display the WMS version of the vector cadastre, we display exactly the same source. As a consequence, it is quite easy to cross check .osm files once displayed as a layer on the top of the WMS layer. As a matter of facts, coordinates stored in the .osm file are the same as the ones used to draw building polygons of the WMS layer : the source is the same, only the way of displaying it differs (vector layer vs WMS layer). Drawing manually can not produce such accurate geometry. The goal of the vector import procedure is similar, use data from this area, reconcile it carefully, include it in OpenStreetMap. The intention is very good. But in execution, it is easier to miss a node or way (or more than one) that needs to be refined before upload. Again, it isn't perfect; nothing is. When you are considering hundreds or thousands of nodes and ways at once, it becomes time consuming to check them all. Right. Done carefully, once again, integration of cadastre's buildings *is* time consuming. I hope that you'll find the above to be easy to agree with. My conclusion, is this. The quality of the hand drawn nodes and ways will be better because when we draw the nodes and ways by hand they get more individual attention and care than when we start with a group of nodes and ways from another file. So that's why I think that it is different to trace by hand, vs. vector import. But what about the rules and edge cases? I consider what you describe as the raster process to be an import when the quantity of data is large. The raster process relies on an external data source for a large quantity of information. If that source is used without considering additional data sources, I think that the classification as import is very clear. On the other hand, I think that if the quantity of data is small, if multiple sources are considered with appropriate weight, and if local knowledge or an in-person survey is included as well? Then the description might be closer to really good mapping. You ask what is the difference between the raster process and tracing from aerial imagery alone. Good question. We haven't to this point considered aerial tracing to be an import, but perhaps we should. Perhaps the reason that tracing aerial imagery is not-an-import is because it is transformative in a more obvious way? Tracing aerial imagery transforms from a (rectified and positioned) picture of the real world, to a vectorized and tagged abstraction. Tracing the raster procedure, if I understand it correctly, transforms from a raster version of one vectorized and tagged abstraction to second vectorized and tagged abstraction. Tracing the raster procedure transforms from a raster version of a *paper map*, not taken from a vectorized source. As mentioned earlier in this thread, French cadastre is still made of rasterized old paper maps in 25% of our municipalities. Sometimes such maps are geo-referenced by the Cadastre authorithy and we take it into account. But in many cases each map is not georeferenced at all. The contributor has to deal with it manually in JOSM. And you can have up to dozens of maps for a single municipalities : a kind of puzzle. See below [1] for a sample. Before tracing from such maps you have to process a transformation that is not a regular orthorectification (we do not use a DEM) but we more or less try to translate + rotate + scale maps so that they fit with other sources : bing imagery, osm data, survey points. I can definitly not consider such workflow as part of an import. Even if I can draw 1000 buildings in a single day on the top of cadastre maps. As you can notice French cadastre is all but a single source in a single format with a nation-wide repository. It is a compilation of formats (vector raster), projections (Lambert Conformal in best cases, no projection at all in worst cases), procedures (from raw osm files to manualy geo-referenced maps). vincent [1] : follow theses steps to display a sample
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
In France, cadastre is the most official source about buildings and land ownership. When you buy/sell a building all the documents refers to the cadastre. It provides sometime too many details compared to what could be seen by survey. Does this mean it is wrong to have too many details ? Considering merging these detailed outlines automatically into a single block is not a option because in many cases in cities this would lead to a single building outline for a whole street block loosing way too many details. Bing aerial pictures are most of the times a good source, but not the reference. Cadastre data may be more up to date (we have new buildings not visible on Bing), and sometimes it is the reverse when Bing aerials are from 2011 or even 2012. That's usual with different source of information, that's why I indicate bing year in the source tags when I trace over bing. I manually traced building in a village in Burgundy because the cadastre was only raster there at that time, then the vector version became available. I updated the whole area and found that vector was much more accurate and higher quality than what I did manually. I think it is the case most of the time because of the georeferencing that is done manually and because inaccuracies/lack of details in the manual tracing. One important thing when tracing cadastre by hand is that you cannot cross check with Bing at the same time because of different projections (Lambert vs Mercator). So cross check with Bing must be done afterwards, exactly like when using vector data. That's why I consider manual tracing as a waste of time, and not high quality compared to using extracted building from vector data. Buildings, even with some artifacts like the one showed by Frederik example, are helping a lot adding POI at their right position. This is also something I learnt after adding POI in my own city and then adding buildings from vector extraction when it became available (this summer). I add to relocate a lot of POI added by myself and other contributors, and adding new ones is now much easier. -- Christian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Richard Weait wrote: On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Olivier Croquette m...@ocroquette.de wrote: If no, it doesn't make any sense to me that a vector based process for the cadaster is an import, and a raster based is not. Everything is the same : kind of data, license, provider… There seems to be a contradiction there. Yes, this is something of a contradiction or edge case. May I offer, from my perspective, an important difference between tracing over raster, and copy / pasting vectors? You say: Some cities (10% as an order of magnitude) have only a raster cadaster, in which case the mapper has to draw all the nodes and points manually. I think that drawing all of the nodes and points manually is an important difference, from a quality point of view. Each node or way that you draw by hand, is carefully considered and placed, one at a time. It isn't perfect; nothing is. I suggest that this leads to a kind of automatic quality control, as the nodes and ways are placed. The goal of the vector import procedure is similar, use data from this area, reconcile it carefully, include it in OpenStreetMap. The intention is very good. But in execution, it is easier to miss a node or way (or more than one) that needs to be refined before upload. Again, it isn't perfect; nothing is. When you are considering hundreds or thousands of nodes and ways at once, it becomes time consuming to check them all. I hope that you'll find the above to be easy to agree with. My conclusion, is this. The quality of the hand drawn nodes and ways will be better because when we draw the nodes and ways by hand they get more individual attention and care than when we start with a group of nodes and ways from another file. So that's why I think that it is different to trace by hand, vs. vector import. I've read those paragraphs several times, but still don't really get your logic. Are you claiming that from two options 1) check+manually trace the data, 2) check vector data, the first one leads to a higher quality output? My perspective is that man-hours are expensive commodity and we should treat it that way and put it to a good use. And I don't think that hand-tracing vector data falls into that category. Best regards, Petr Morávek aka Xificurk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Christian Quest wrote: So cross check with Bing must be done afterwards, exactly like when using vector data. That's why I consider manual tracing as a waste of time, and not high quality compared to using extracted building from vector data. Christian I've now seen your source data, and that is showing buildings as 'blocks'. In the PDF file are those blocks drawn individually when there are are more than one building side by side? Or are the vectors simply the outline of the whole block? I'm sure that over time improved quality data will evolve, but the current vector data that many of us have access to is not ideal. Personally the problems I am finding is where we have semi detached houses drawn as a single block, and splitting that into two blocks is a pain on potlatch ... I've not tried on JOSM yet. But a tool on my 'wish list' is one I can use to select vector lines from a 'staging layer' and combining them to a closed way to which I can then add extra tags. This I think is the best way to use this 'poor quality' vector data and convert it to better quality data? I can also see a 'split' tool, where the imported vectors are for a 'semi' or 'terrace' and you want to split each out to separate buildings. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.048913lon=-1.85734zoom=18 will show my own experience with all of this. What is not visible is the Opendata streetview layer, and just how bad the vector data is with respect to the current status. 'New' buildings are actually not too bad, but none of the extensions on the houses on Smallbrook Road are present on the OS layer, which seems to be stuck with 40+ year old data. Some how I expect the same sort of discrepancies in most data, and so I would not use the OS data in the same manor you are using the French data, although with my historic hat on it WOULD be nice to retain the history of the additions of these extensions over time. Importing buildings from the Opendata streetview layer would fill up the UK map, but we do not know what date the buildings relate to and then updating and we still need to split and add address data ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Le 26/09/2012 23:00, Christian Quest a écrit : In France, cadastre is the most official source about buildings and land ownership. When you buy/sell a building all the documents refers to the cadastre. It provides sometime too many details compared to what could be seen by survey. Does this mean it is wrong to have too many details ? For example the building given by Frederik (OK, they are some mistakes in it) http://osm.org/go/xVR3y4BJp-- Some polygons have the tag wall=no, that explain the number of polygons. Shour we detele this information by merging them ? -- FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
2012/9/26 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: Christian Quest wrote: So cross check with Bing must be done afterwards, exactly like when using vector data. That's why I consider manual tracing as a waste of time, and not high quality compared to using extracted building from vector data. Christian I've now seen your source data, and that is showing buildings as 'blocks'. In the PDF file are those blocks drawn individually when there are are more than one building side by side? Or are the vectors simply the outline of the whole block? There is no single answer as there is many different cases. Most of the time, a building is defined by a single polygon. Sometimes, in may be split into multiple polygons if the land/building ownership has evolved during the past or if the building is composed of different parts. Auto-merging is almost impossible and manual merging is not obvious. Sometimes, one building polygon is covering different building parts. Auto-split is also almost impossible and manual split also not obvious. I'm sure that over time improved quality data will evolve, but the current vector data that many of us have access to is not ideal. I doubt we will ever have access to a better source nation wide. Some cities that stepped into opendata do provide building vector data but they are a minority and most of the time it is the same data because cities are updating the cadastre data locally then send it to the nationwide administration. Cities and town had/have the responsibility to create the vector version. Some parts of France are fully vectorized, some are still very late (25% of our 36000+ communes still). Personally the problems I am finding is where we have semi detached houses drawn as a single block, and splitting that into two blocks is a pain on potlatch ... Well... working with complex objects may be a pain in Potlatch but this is not typical of building coming from the cadastre. Some building with wholes in them are even using multipolygon relations. I've not tried on JOSM yet. But a tool on my 'wish list' is one I can use to select vector lines from a 'staging layer' and combining them to a closed way to which I can then add extra tags. This I think is the best way to use this 'poor quality' vector data and convert it to better quality data? I can also see a 'split' tool, where the imported vectors are for a 'semi' or 'terrace' and you want to split each out to separate buildings. I agree that a tool in JOSM (or whatever is your editor of choice) to split a polygon into 2 smaller polygons could be really helpful, not only for buildings. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.048913lon=-1.85734zoom=18 will show my own experience with all of this. What is not visible is the Opendata streetview layer, and just how bad the vector data is with respect to the current status. 'New' buildings are actually not too bad, but none of the extensions on the houses on Smallbrook Road are present on the OS layer, which seems to be stuck with 40+ year old data. Some how I expect the same sort of discrepancies in most data, and so I would not use the OS data in the same manor you are using the French data, although with my historic hat on it WOULD be nice to retain the history of the additions of these extensions over time. Importing buildings from the Opendata streetview layer would fill up the UK map, but we do not know what date the buildings relate to and then updating and we still need to split and add address data ... The cadastre is not perfect, but it is not 40+ years old data, it is closer to 1 or 2 years old in most cases. The updates are available more or less once a year on a town by town basis. Cadastre is used to collect taxes and our administration is quite efficient in that area ;) In the source tag, dgi means Direction Générale des Impôts (Impôts = taxes). What's missing from time to time in the cadastre data are state/public buildings as they don't pay taxes ! One additional thing we have been able to extract from vector cadastre data is a rough length of highways/path/tracks in each town. This allows to have a rough idea of the existing/missing ratio as displayed by this layer: http://layers.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=7lat=47.45473lon=2.19472layers=B00FT -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Le 27/09/2012 00:35, Christian Quest a écrit : I agree that a tool in JOSM (or whatever is your editor of choice) to split a polygon into 2 smaller polygons could be really helpful, not only for buildings. In JOSM ? I add 2 nodes (with the middle cross in the segments) I select them and the polygon I press alt x done. Thanks JOSM. -- FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
2012/9/26 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: Personally I would prefer to see http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/funnybuilding.png as a single closed outline box. I think that 6-7 buildings (looking at the bing aerial http://it.bing.com/maps/?v=2cp=44.277739~0.502686lvl=20dir=0sty=hwhere1=44,277748%200,502839form=LMLTCC , maybe there is more but on a first remote approximation I could see 6 or 7) would be much better than a single closed outline box, especially, if the tag is something like building=yes which is used for one building, not groups of them. There is a really huge difference between 1 big building and 7 adjacent small ones. The problem is, that the cadastre version doesn't seem to make sense when compared to the aerial imagery. It is better to have detailed outlines, but only if this detail is depicting reality. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
From: Olivier Croquette [mailto:m...@ocroquette.de] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre This is not an example that you only find after a long search; it is a typical cadastre import building. Until you can back up your claim with solid numbers, your claim, more specifically the wordtypical, is just FUD. Furthermore it can hurt many hard working french contributors, who for a single city spent dozens of hours integrating the cadaster into OSM. Time for some numbers then... Detailed data is available upon request. I decided that to rewind my scripts one week and let them run until I had at least 15 import changesets by at least 10 different users was the simplest way to get a representative sample of recent cadastre imports. A set of 16 changesets was generated. A side effect of running the scripts was generating a list of all changesets that overlapped with the time period. As there were approximately 11k changesets I used python's random library to select 1000 random changesets as a representative sample of data the same age. By setting these criteria beforehand I avoided any bias that may be present in existing import changeset lists such as a list from a list of blocks. Due to technical reasons this analysis is based on the data as it is now, not as it was immediately after import. This may result in bad imports (e.g. duplicate uploads) not being considered if they were reverted in the past week. The total time reviewed was approximately from Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:00 to Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:30, or approximately 1 day. If there is day to day variation in import quality this analysis will not show it. Although not the point of this analysis, one potential measure of integration with other data is the version of the objects. I present this for general interest, not for the question of what a typical cadastre building is. Previous research into object versions has found they tend to obey a power law (after normalization with number of v1 objects) where count = version ^ m. A best fit line on a log-log plot finds m=-4.681 (R^2=0.946) for the imported ways and m=-2.243 (R^2=0.991). There is a marked difference between the versions of ways in the two sets of changesets. This is not unexpected as the cadastre imports are primarily new buildings and involve minimal changes to existing data. [1] An analysis of buildings in the random changesets finds m=-3.520 (R^2=0.971) but a similar import building-only analysis does not find enough data to draw conclusions from. Changes to ways in cadastre imports cannot be said be similar to changes to ways in random changesets w.r.t. versions of objects. Now, the analysis of geometry. One measure of how broken down into parts buildings are is to take the buildings, turn them into polygons, combine them into one multipolygon with ST_Union and then count the number of parts with ST_Dump and compare it with the original number of buildings. This does not consider buildings made from multipolygons (e.g. those with an inner hole). I get the following data Changeset Joined Original 13175035 3661 6341 13175649 503 1240 13176058 521 951 13176212 219 341 13176769 922 1510 13177032 1515 2782 13177569 2216 4291 13180264 536 830 13180628 1449 2230 131816982 2 13183198 506 883 13184921 286 462 13185567 255 438 13185645 1135 2373 Total 13726 24674 An analysis of the average number of parts of a building is beyond the scope of this, but if you assume that a building like Frederik's example on average consists of 5 parts then 20% of buildings then consist of multiple ways. (Or 55% of ways are part of these buildings) For reference, when I ran the same analysis on the random data (but not grouping by changeset) I found 5023 buildings and 6375 ways. Using the same assumptions this is 6.7% of buildings. I repeated the same analysis, looking only at v1 ways and found 4249 buildings and 5497 for the random changesets and 13109 buildings and 23611 ways for import changesets. Conclusion: A significant number of cadastre imported buildings consist of multiple ways, such as in the example Frederik gave. The difference from other buildings a week old is statistically significant. This is true even if only looking at the subset of buildings that are new buildings. [1]: If anyone doubts this I could carry out an analysis on this point. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
2012/9/26 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: To Frederik, In your example, I agree with you that the diagonal line is a glitch, most probably coming from a parcel line just underneath. actually it is not only the diagonal line (which is an obvious error), but it is also all or most of the divisions, which don't seem to corrispond at all to real buildings or parts of them (maybe they are property divisions, but then the property in this ensemble is divided quite weird) when confronted with the aerial imagery. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Hi, Le 27/09/2012 02:18, Paul Norman a écrit : Now, the analysis of geometry. One measure of how broken down into parts buildings are is to take the buildings, turn them into polygons, combine them into one multipolygon with ST_Union and then count the number of parts with ST_Dump and compare it with the original number of buildings. This does not consider buildings made from multipolygons (e.g. those with an inner hole). I get the following data Changeset Joined Original 13175035 3661 6341 13175649 503 1240 13176058 521 951 13176212 219 341 13176769 922 1510 13177032 1515 2782 13177569 2216 4291 13180264 536 830 13180628 1449 2230 131816982 2 13183198 506 883 13184921 286 462 13185567 255 438 13185645 1135 2373 Total 13726 24674 I am not sure to understand the right way how you deal with multiple buildings sharing ways (= sharing walls IRL) and having each a different house number. For instance how many joined buildings would give your analysis here : http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=48.86494mlon=2.33zoom=18layers=M = the block between Rue d'Alger and Rue du 29 juillet ? vincent ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk