Re: [Talk-ca] Importing buildings in Canada

[john whelan]

Pierre looking at the Microsoft imports south of the border and their
process is undoubtedly sensible.

I suggest waiting until we have got some movement on the current import
rather than try to tackle to many things at once.

Cheerio John

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 1:47 PM Pierre Béland,  wrote:

> John,
>
> Exprime tu simplement une opinion, ou as-tu vérifié les procédures
> d'import incluant correction des données et validé la qualité des données
> importées aux États-Unis ? Considères-tu la qualité des données dans la
> base OSM aux États-Unis comparable à ce qui s'est fait au Canada l'an
> dernier ?
>
> La qualité des données Microsoft peut sans doute varier selon divers
> facteurs dont la qualité et précision des données aériennes utilisées.
>
> De mon côté, j'ai regardé du côté de Dallas, Texas. En consultant le
> gestionnaire de tâches US, il est possible d'y repérer les tâches créées
> pour cartographier des bâtiments.
>
> https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/contribute?difficulty=ALL=ARCHIVED=BUILDINGS
>
> Dans ces zones, j'ai constaté en général une bonne qualité des données.
> Je ne connais pas les procédures utilisées, ni regardé le connu des
> fichiers de données Microsoft pour ces zones, mais la tâche ci-dessous
> montre un processus de validation où il était demandé d'orthogonaliser les
> bâtiments.
> https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/164#bottom
>
> Pierre
>
>
> Le vendredi 17 janvier 2020 13 h 02 min 20 s UTC−5, john whelan <
> jwhelan0...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
> > As stated before, I don't consider the Microsoft dataset being close to
> the minimum quality requirements I would expect from any automated
> building entry into OSM.
>
> Well yes that is one opinion but we do have a range of opinions in
> OpenStreetMap and from the number of buildings that have already been
> imported into OpenStreetMap from Microsoft, there seems to be a large
> number in the US for example, it would appear there are those who disagree
> with you which is not surprising given the number of mappers.
>
> To me the buildings are of more interest once they get enriched with more
> tags and the place that happens is in OpenStreetMap.  Streetcomplete I
> think is either the most popular editor these days or very close to it.
> You can't add tags if the buildings are not in OpenStreetMap.  Yes you can
> display the outlines by using the Microsoft data but that does not show
> tags such as building type, building levels, etc etc. and streetcomplete is
> a tool that can be used to introduce OpenStreetMap to many people.
>
> I think perhaps we should concentrate our efforts on the current import
> for the moment but I suspect that some Microsoft buildings will start to be
> imported in Canada even if they don't have an official import plan.
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 12:12, Tim Elrick  wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> As stated before, I don't consider the Microsoft dataset being close to
> the minimum quality requirements I would expect from any automated
> building entry into OSM. If you just want to display buildings, you can
> download the MS dataset and use it right away - no need to import into
> OSM. I think, the MS dataset has value as proof of concept and to count
> the number of buildings in a given area (e.g. to estimate market size
> for roofers, estimate number of persons living there for desaster
> relief, etc.). I also think, when Microsoft feeds its algorithm with
> higher resolution data than they did (I don't recall, but I think they
> only used the regular Bing data) they will probably end up with building
> footprints that will meet our/my quality requirements for import into
> OSM one day.
>
> For me, the value of OSM is having accurate information in terms of tags
> and geometry. Otherwise, we could join Wikimapia; they don't care too
> much about geometry accuracy but emphasize on content/tags of objects.
> Pretty interesting project, but different from OSM.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
>
> On 2020-01-17 10:40, john whelan wrote:
>   >first, to add missing buildings (if it were
> just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft
> dataset)
>
> I can't resist.  Does this infer that for parts of the country without
> Stat Can data we are happy to import Microsoft dataset buildings as is?
> Or would we wish to wait until we have some more imports done before
> looking at preprocessing them in some way first.
>
> Thanks John
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:11 PM Tim Elrick,  > wrote:
>
>  I would assume in most cases the imported building footprint will be
>  more precise than existing data. For me, this would be a reason to
>  replace already existing objects. However, I think this is a case by
>  case decision. However, I think it is important to keep tags and
>  history
>  of buildings already existent in OSM. This is how I would
>  read/interpret
>  the import guideline stated by Nate: "If you are importing data where
>  

Re: [Talk-ca] Importing buildings in Canada

[Pierre Béland via Talk-ca]

John,
Exprime tu simplement une opinion, ou as-tu vérifié les procédures d'import 
incluant correction des données et validé la qualité des données importées aux 
États-Unis ? Considères-tu la qualité des données dans la base OSM aux 
États-Unis comparable à ce qui s'est fait au Canada l'an dernier ? 

La qualité des données Microsoft peut sans doute varier selon divers facteurs 
dont la qualité et précision des données aériennes utilisées.
De mon côté, j'ai regardé du côté de Dallas, Texas. En consultant le 
gestionnaire de tâches US, il est possible d'y repérer les tâches créées pour 
cartographier des bâtiments.
https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/contribute?difficulty=ALL=ARCHIVED=BUILDINGS
Dans ces zones, j'ai constaté en général une bonne qualité des données.  Je ne 
connais pas les procédures utilisées, ni regardé le connu des fichiers de 
données Microsoft pour ces zones, mais la tâche ci-dessous montre un processus 
de validation où il était demandé d'orthogonaliser les 
bâtiments.https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/164#bottom 
Pierre 
 

Le vendredi 17 janvier 2020 13 h 02 min 20 s UTC−5, john whelan 
 a écrit :  
 
 > As stated before, I don't consider the Microsoft dataset being close tothe 
 >minimum quality requirements I would expect from any automated
building entry into OSM.
Well yes that is one opinion but we do have a range of opinions in 
OpenStreetMap and from the number of buildings that have already been imported 
into OpenStreetMap from Microsoft, there seems to be a large number in the US 
for example, it would appear there are those who disagree with you which is not 
surprising given the number of mappers.
To me the buildings are of more interest once they get enriched with more tags 
and the place that happens is in OpenStreetMap.  Streetcomplete I think is 
either the most popular editor these days or very close to it.  You can't add 
tags if the buildings are not in OpenStreetMap.  Yes you can display the 
outlines by using the Microsoft data but that does not show tags such as 
building type, building levels, etc etc. and streetcomplete is a tool that can 
be used to introduce OpenStreetMap to many people.
I think perhaps we should concentrate our efforts on the current import for the 
moment but I suspect that some Microsoft buildings will start to be imported in 
Canada even if they don't have an official import plan.
Cheerio John 

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 12:12, Tim Elrick  wrote:

Hi John,

As stated before, I don't consider the Microsoft dataset being close to 
the minimum quality requirements I would expect from any automated 
building entry into OSM. If you just want to display buildings, you can 
download the MS dataset and use it right away - no need to import into 
OSM. I think, the MS dataset has value as proof of concept and to count 
the number of buildings in a given area (e.g. to estimate market size 
for roofers, estimate number of persons living there for desaster 
relief, etc.). I also think, when Microsoft feeds its algorithm with 
higher resolution data than they did (I don't recall, but I think they 
only used the regular Bing data) they will probably end up with building 
footprints that will meet our/my quality requirements for import into 
OSM one day.

For me, the value of OSM is having accurate information in terms of tags 
and geometry. Otherwise, we could join Wikimapia; they don't care too 
much about geometry accuracy but emphasize on content/tags of objects. 
Pretty interesting project, but different from OSM.

Cheers,
Tim

On 2020-01-17 10:40, john whelan wrote:
  >first, to add missing buildings (if it were
just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft
dataset)

I can't resist.  Does this infer that for parts of the country without
Stat Can data we are happy to import Microsoft dataset buildings as is?
Or would we wish to wait until we have some more imports done before
looking at preprocessing them in some way first.

Thanks John



On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:11 PM Tim Elrick, mailto:o...@elrick.de>> wrote:

     I would assume in most cases the imported building footprint will be
     more precise than existing data. For me, this would be a reason to
     replace already existing objects. However, I think this is a case by
     case decision. However, I think it is important to keep tags and
     history
     of buildings already existent in OSM. This is how I would
     read/interpret
     the import guideline stated by Nate: "If you are importing data where
     there is already some data in OSM, then *you need to combine this data*
     in an appropriate way or suppress the import of features with overlap
     with existing data." (emphasis added by me)

     However, that just means, the import, hence, is nothing easy and could
     not be achieve quickly, I would assume. One way of making sure that
     this
     is dealt with diligently, would be setting the tasking manager to
     'experienced mappers only'. We 

Re: [Talk-ca] Importing buildings in Canada

[john whelan]

> As stated before, I don't consider the Microsoft dataset being close to
the minimum quality requirements I would expect from any automated
building entry into OSM.

Well yes that is one opinion but we do have a range of opinions in
OpenStreetMap and from the number of buildings that have already been
imported into OpenStreetMap from Microsoft, there seems to be a large
number in the US for example, it would appear there are those who disagree
with you which is not surprising given the number of mappers.

To me the buildings are of more interest once they get enriched with more
tags and the place that happens is in OpenStreetMap.  Streetcomplete I
think is either the most popular editor these days or very close to it.
You can't add tags if the buildings are not in OpenStreetMap.  Yes you can
display the outlines by using the Microsoft data but that does not show
tags such as building type, building levels, etc etc. and streetcomplete is
a tool that can be used to introduce OpenStreetMap to many people.

I think perhaps we should concentrate our efforts on the current import for
the moment but I suspect that some Microsoft buildings will start to be
imported in Canada even if they don't have an official import plan.

Cheerio John


On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 12:12, Tim Elrick  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> As stated before, I don't consider the Microsoft dataset being close to
> the minimum quality requirements I would expect from any automated
> building entry into OSM. If you just want to display buildings, you can
> download the MS dataset and use it right away - no need to import into
> OSM. I think, the MS dataset has value as proof of concept and to count
> the number of buildings in a given area (e.g. to estimate market size
> for roofers, estimate number of persons living there for desaster
> relief, etc.). I also think, when Microsoft feeds its algorithm with
> higher resolution data than they did (I don't recall, but I think they
> only used the regular Bing data) they will probably end up with building
> footprints that will meet our/my quality requirements for import into
> OSM one day.
>
> For me, the value of OSM is having accurate information in terms of tags
> and geometry. Otherwise, we could join Wikimapia; they don't care too
> much about geometry accuracy but emphasize on content/tags of objects.
> Pretty interesting project, but different from OSM.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
>
> On 2020-01-17 10:40, john whelan wrote:
>   >first, to add missing buildings (if it were
> just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft
> dataset)
>
> I can't resist.  Does this infer that for parts of the country without
> Stat Can data we are happy to import Microsoft dataset buildings as is?
> Or would we wish to wait until we have some more imports done before
> looking at preprocessing them in some way first.
>
> Thanks John
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:11 PM Tim Elrick,  > wrote:
>
>  I would assume in most cases the imported building footprint will be
>  more precise than existing data. For me, this would be a reason to
>  replace already existing objects. However, I think this is a case by
>  case decision. However, I think it is important to keep tags and
>  history
>  of buildings already existent in OSM. This is how I would
>  read/interpret
>  the import guideline stated by Nate: "If you are importing data where
>  there is already some data in OSM, then *you need to combine this
> data*
>  in an appropriate way or suppress the import of features with overlap
>  with existing data." (emphasis added by me)
>
>  However, that just means, the import, hence, is nothing easy and could
>  not be achieve quickly, I would assume. One way of making sure that
>  this
>  is dealt with diligently, would be setting the tasking manager to
>  'experienced mappers only'. We would have to ask James, who is in
>  charge
>  of the Canada Tasking Manager, how to edit/set up the 'experienced
>  mapper role' in the TM. It might be possible to feed in a list of
>  mappers manually or to set a threshold of objects/changesets that they
>  must have entered in OSM. However, maybe only mappers who feel
>  experienced enough to handle the import would contribute to the TM
>  project anyway and we let everyone judge on their own and don't
>  restrict
>  access.
>
>  If we were to separate the new and overlapping buildings, I am also
>  leaning towards Daniel's assessment. I would be afraid to cause more
>  issues than by doing it all at once (with a reasonable tile size, of
>  course).
>
>  In the end, the main point of importing this specific dataset fulfils
>  two purposes, in my opinion: first, to add missing buildings (if it
>  were
>  just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft
>  dataset), second, to get the best geospatial representation 

Re: [Talk-ca] Importing buildings in Canada

[Tim Elrick]

Hi John,

As stated before, I don't consider the Microsoft dataset being close to 
the minimum quality requirements I would expect from any automated 
building entry into OSM. If you just want to display buildings, you can 
download the MS dataset and use it right away - no need to import into 
OSM. I think, the MS dataset has value as proof of concept and to count 
the number of buildings in a given area (e.g. to estimate market size 
for roofers, estimate number of persons living there for desaster 
relief, etc.). I also think, when Microsoft feeds its algorithm with 
higher resolution data than they did (I don't recall, but I think they 
only used the regular Bing data) they will probably end up with building 
footprints that will meet our/my quality requirements for import into 
OSM one day.


For me, the value of OSM is having accurate information in terms of tags 
and geometry. Otherwise, we could join Wikimapia; they don't care too 
much about geometry accuracy but emphasize on content/tags of objects. 
Pretty interesting project, but different from OSM.


Cheers,
Tim

On 2020-01-17 10:40, john whelan wrote:
 >first, to add missing buildings (if it were
just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft
dataset)

I can't resist.  Does this infer that for parts of the country without
Stat Can data we are happy to import Microsoft dataset buildings as is?
Or would we wish to wait until we have some more imports done before
looking at preprocessing them in some way first.

Thanks John



On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:11 PM Tim Elrick, mailto:o...@elrick.de>> wrote:

I would assume in most cases the imported building footprint will be
more precise than existing data. For me, this would be a reason to
replace already existing objects. However, I think this is a case by
case decision. However, I think it is important to keep tags and
history
of buildings already existent in OSM. This is how I would
read/interpret
the import guideline stated by Nate: "If you are importing data where
there is already some data in OSM, then *you need to combine this data*
in an appropriate way or suppress the import of features with overlap
with existing data." (emphasis added by me)

However, that just means, the import, hence, is nothing easy and could
not be achieve quickly, I would assume. One way of making sure that
this
is dealt with diligently, would be setting the tasking manager to
'experienced mappers only'. We would have to ask James, who is in
charge
of the Canada Tasking Manager, how to edit/set up the 'experienced
mapper role' in the TM. It might be possible to feed in a list of
mappers manually or to set a threshold of objects/changesets that they
must have entered in OSM. However, maybe only mappers who feel
experienced enough to handle the import would contribute to the TM
project anyway and we let everyone judge on their own and don't
restrict
access.

If we were to separate the new and overlapping buildings, I am also
leaning towards Daniel's assessment. I would be afraid to cause more
issues than by doing it all at once (with a reasonable tile size, of
course).

In the end, the main point of importing this specific dataset fulfils
two purposes, in my opinion: first, to add missing buildings (if it
were
just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft
dataset), second, to get the best geospatial representation possible in
our OSM database. That means, we defer from using the Microsoft dataset
and use the much higher quality data from the ODB. This also means that
we should replace already existing buildings (yet keeping tags and
history) wherever the ODB footprint is more precise than the
existing one.

Just my two cents here,
Tim

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Importing buildings in Canada

[john whelan]

>first, to add missing buildings (if it were
just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft
dataset)

I can't resist.  Does this infer that for parts of the country without Stat
Can data we are happy to import Microsoft dataset buildings as is?  Or
would we wish to wait until we have some more imports done before looking
at preprocessing them in some way first.

Thanks John



On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:11 PM Tim Elrick,  wrote:

> I would assume in most cases the imported building footprint will be
> more precise than existing data. For me, this would be a reason to
> replace already existing objects. However, I think this is a case by
> case decision. However, I think it is important to keep tags and history
> of buildings already existent in OSM. This is how I would read/interpret
> the import guideline stated by Nate: "If you are importing data where
> there is already some data in OSM, then *you need to combine this data*
> in an appropriate way or suppress the import of features with overlap
> with existing data." (emphasis added by me)
>
> However, that just means, the import, hence, is nothing easy and could
> not be achieve quickly, I would assume. One way of making sure that this
> is dealt with diligently, would be setting the tasking manager to
> 'experienced mappers only'. We would have to ask James, who is in charge
> of the Canada Tasking Manager, how to edit/set up the 'experienced
> mapper role' in the TM. It might be possible to feed in a list of
> mappers manually or to set a threshold of objects/changesets that they
> must have entered in OSM. However, maybe only mappers who feel
> experienced enough to handle the import would contribute to the TM
> project anyway and we let everyone judge on their own and don't restrict
> access.
>
> If we were to separate the new and overlapping buildings, I am also
> leaning towards Daniel's assessment. I would be afraid to cause more
> issues than by doing it all at once (with a reasonable tile size, of
> course).
>
> In the end, the main point of importing this specific dataset fulfils
> two purposes, in my opinion: first, to add missing buildings (if it were
> just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft
> dataset), second, to get the best geospatial representation possible in
> our OSM database. That means, we defer from using the Microsoft dataset
> and use the much higher quality data from the ODB. This also means that
> we should replace already existing buildings (yet keeping tags and
> history) wherever the ODB footprint is more precise than the existing one.
>
> Just my two cents here,
> Tim
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Importing buildings in Canada

[James]

I could set the task up to be seen only by validators+ which I then can sst
individual users as validators

On Thu., Jan. 16, 2020, 10:10 p.m. Tim Elrick,  wrote:

> I would assume in most cases the imported building footprint will be
> more precise than existing data. For me, this would be a reason to
> replace already existing objects. However, I think this is a case by
> case decision. However, I think it is important to keep tags and history
> of buildings already existent in OSM. This is how I would read/interpret
> the import guideline stated by Nate: "If you are importing data where
> there is already some data in OSM, then *you need to combine this data*
> in an appropriate way or suppress the import of features with overlap
> with existing data." (emphasis added by me)
>
> However, that just means, the import, hence, is nothing easy and could
> not be achieve quickly, I would assume. One way of making sure that this
> is dealt with diligently, would be setting the tasking manager to
> 'experienced mappers only'. We would have to ask James, who is in charge
> of the Canada Tasking Manager, how to edit/set up the 'experienced
> mapper role' in the TM. It might be possible to feed in a list of
> mappers manually or to set a threshold of objects/changesets that they
> must have entered in OSM. However, maybe only mappers who feel
> experienced enough to handle the import would contribute to the TM
> project anyway and we let everyone judge on their own and don't restrict
> access.
>
> If we were to separate the new and overlapping buildings, I am also
> leaning towards Daniel's assessment. I would be afraid to cause more
> issues than by doing it all at once (with a reasonable tile size, of
> course).
>
> In the end, the main point of importing this specific dataset fulfils
> two purposes, in my opinion: first, to add missing buildings (if it were
> just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft
> dataset), second, to get the best geospatial representation possible in
> our OSM database. That means, we defer from using the Microsoft dataset
> and use the much higher quality data from the ODB. This also means that
> we should replace already existing buildings (yet keeping tags and
> history) wherever the ODB footprint is more precise than the existing one.
>
> Just my two cents here,
> Tim
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca