Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

Salut Pierre, peut-être c'est le lien de téléchargement qui fonctionne pas bien, voici une alternative: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ciiex5w67ohwzy/ontario-simplified.tar.xz?dl=0 On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:19 AM Pierre Béland wrote: > Mon problème est dés le téléchargement. Cela m'indique que

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

Mon problème est dés le téléchargement. Cela m'indique que google ne peut effectuer l'analyse d'antivirus et m'offre de télécharger quand même. De là, message d'erreur.Voici le message avec Chrome Ce site ne peut pas fournir de connexion sécurisée doc-08-3g-docs.googleusercontent.com a envoyé

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

tar.xz c'est un fichier compressé contenant un fichier geojson(il se ouvre bien avec 7zip sur windows, ou n'importe quel program d'archive sur mac ou Linux), qui est servie via la Task Manager. Ce n'est pas la version originale de Stats Can, tu as raison, c'sst la version minifié sans les extras

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

James, Je pense que nous travaillons sur deux aspects différents. Tu te concentre sur la production / correction des fichiers d'import. A ma connaissance, tu n'a pas décrit le contenu dufichier ontario-simplified.tar.xz.  Je suppose que ce sont les données d'import originales où tu apportes

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

So my interpretation is we save about 9% by simplifying? However does it mean we probably do need to verify the before and after manually? Would someone care to comment on if we would need to manually look at the before and after and if 9% savings would be significant? My personal feeling would

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

Resending because these emails are getting over 40KB in size and talk list is spazzing out: Original: 9.263 Average points per feature Points:20346517 Features:2196329 Simplified (20cm): 8.425 Average points per feature Points:18504036 Features:2196329

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

It appears the original discussion on talk-ca was missed by many. There appears to be an issue of local buy-in but I think for the moment we should first concentrate on the problems we expect to see. The building outlines we imported in Ottawa predated the Bing imagery I suspect. So first off

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

It seems that talk-ca works this way - long periods of silence, then a burst of emails because something went wrong! I just realized that this massive import of buildings started a few weeks ago and I'm surprised. I was trying to stay informed about the project because I was worried about how

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

Yeah, even going to 8 GB (-Xmx8192m on my java launch command line) I hang about halfway through opening "Loading json file." I'll try 16 GB (whew!) and QGIS next. Steve > On Jan 19, 2019, at 2:17 PM, James wrote: > > use qgis or launch josm with java in 64bit mode(d64) with memory options

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

use qgis or launch josm with java in 64bit mode(d64) with memory options (Xms, Xmx), or it will crap out at 3.5GB On Sat., Jan. 19, 2019, 5:13 p.m. OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: > On Jan 19, 2019, at 2:01 PM, James wrote: > > Is there no one that will analyse the data

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

Hi James, I for one will be happy to talk about the technical issues of simplification... though I think at the moment it seems to be taking a backseat here to bigger issues like building consensus around the validity of this import. Since this is a more technical issue, can I suggest that

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

On Jan 19, 2019, at 2:01 PM, James wrote: > Is there no one that will analyse the data I've posted here? > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OK83yrPwMW4nefyu-6JsIInu0meK2rW6/view?usp=sharing > or are we just email thread warriors? Well, slow down there, cowboy, it is gigabytes of data and I've

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

Is there no one that will analyse the data I've posted here? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OK83yrPwMW4nefyu-6JsIInu0meK2rW6/view?usp=sharing or are we just email thread warriors? On Sat., Jan. 19, 2019, 4:29 p.m. Pierre Béland via Talk-ca < talk-ca@openstreetmap.org wrote: > Voici une

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

Voici une compilation statistique à partir des changesets de OSM pour la grande région de Toronto (bbox=-80.8951,42.9142,-78.1046,44.3297).  Depuis  Pour respecter la politique de confidentialité de OSM, les contributeurs ne sont identifiés que selon leur uid. Depuis décembre, on compte 6

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

Saturday, January 19, 2019 5:07:52 AM Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel I'm saying when the matter was first raised on the import mailing list as a heads up I made reference to the existing Ottawa pilot and gave a link basically saying we would be

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

I'm saying when the matter was first raised on the import mailing list as a heads up I made reference to the existing Ottawa pilot and gave a link basically saying we would be following the same pattern.  There was considerable discussion around the Ottawa import plan both on the import plan

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

John, I'm sorry to keep saying this, but I really do not think this is an acceptable import approval process. You're saying there was no wiki describing the plan when this went to the imports mailing list - only a link to a similar plan with related data. You did not follow the import

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

I'm not familiar with the tool, but that is essentially what I'm asking for -  nothing all that complicated. We would need to make sure we're not losing any valuable detail though, and ensure that topology is preserved where buildings share nodes. Nate Wessel Jack of all trades, Master of

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

I agree and we are sensitive to Quebec's position. I think the hope was we would make the data available and that local mappers would be involved in the import over time as happens with CANVEC.  One comment I heard early on was this isn't so much an import as a marathon. What seems to have

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

John, Il y a local et local. Compte-tenu des différences culturelles Québec vs Canada en général et que les contributeurs du Québec ne fréquentent pratiquement pas cette liste, vous ne devriez pas prendre pour acquis que vous représentez cette communauté et pouvez démarrer des projets en son

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

I found the building footprints to be very good. JOSM cleaned up most of the errors..I'm not sure it would be worth the risk to do more processing. Sometimes there were crossing ways, usually with terrace or buildings in the downtown core that need to be fixed manually. Which took a ton of time.

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

You guys can analyze the simplified version of ontario: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OK83yrPwMW4nefyu-6JsIInu0meK2rW6/view?usp=sharing If you think it's good, I can simplify the other files and process them into mbtiles. ___ Talk-ca mailing list

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

I'm on board with removing redundant nodes, as long as it doesn't affect actual geometries much. Also there are quite a few duplicated nodes in buildings. They can be removed in JOSM in one click before upload but better to do it at the source. On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 4:25 PM James wrote: > I

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

I can run all the shapefiles through qgis simplify tool if this resolves the issue... On Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, 4:08 p.m. Nate Wessel With default settings in JOSM, sure. In the import I was working on, we > used a Douglas-Peucker algorithm with a 20cm threshold (before the import > started) and

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

With default settings in JOSM, sure. In the import I was working on, we used a Douglas-Peucker algorithm with a 20cm threshold (before the import started) and it worked beautifully. We had many points that seemed to have been introduced in the shapefiles as some kind of data artifact - they

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

James you know I could never resist a dare! Cheerio John James wrote on 2019-01-18 4:03 PM: dare you to run simplify tool on anything remotely round, it will make it look like garbage On Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, 3:49 p.m. John Whelan wrote: The import mailing

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

dare you to run simplify tool on anything remotely round, it will make it look like garbage On Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, 3:49 p.m. John Whelan The import mailing list was pointed to the correct page of the wiki. The > initial post was to say this is what we were thinking of and there was a > comment

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

The import mailing list was pointed to the correct page of the wiki.  The initial post was to say this is what we were thinking of and there was a comment saying we needed to change the comment line. >There is no mention of this proposed import on the import catalogue The import process was

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

John, You seem to be playing the long game with this data - it sounds like you've been working with this a lot longer than I have, and you've put in the time and effort to help make this actually-quite-incredible dataset available to us. I don't want to stop the import from happening - quite

Re: [Talk-ca] 2020 building import wiki comment by Nate Wessel

Hi John, As Steve has said, you seem to be the only one suggesting that thousands of import committees might need to be formed. Certainly I'm not suggesting that. My understanding of OSM import procedure (and wiki-style projects more generally) is that imports should operate in an