I think Pablo also helped in some pieces of the GRB: http://www.geopunt.be/kaart?viewer_url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.geopunt.be%2Fresources%2Fapps%2FGeopunt-kaart_app%2Findex.html%3Fid%3Dff8080814a6e1332014abb6b94c80023
Is it normal that quality differs from municipality to municipality? In Staden, I haven't seen any problem with GRB. But in Roeselare, I often bump into problems like these. Buildings with a completely clear form (however, they're often quite new, so perhaps drawn without aerial pics), but drawn completely wrong in GRB. Up until now, I've avoided the old centre of the town, because the building layouts are way too complicated there. It might get easier when we have access to the GRB. So yes, an automated import won't work, but being able to use it opens up a lot of perspectives, so thanks to anyone involved. Regards, Sander 2015-01-05 15:35 GMT+01:00 Gilbert Hersschens <gherssch...@gmail.com>: > In comparison to Bing even Picasso wins ;-) > > On 5 January 2015 at 15:30, Glenn Plas <gl...@byte-consult.be> wrote: > >> In my experience, the outlines and building shapes I've seen in GRB are >> like 10 times better than all the work that exists using bing and other >> sources. >> >> A one on one copy would be silly, but if you bring it all together, >> agiv/grb and osm data, it helps to make sense of what you are looking >> at. Also it is conclusive usually when new buildings replace older. >> It's the best source, I don't really care if the house isn't exactly >> as-is. >> >> The housenumber inports will take years, but it's fine as it is as tons >> of intelligent choices and conclusions, mistakes and other uglynes needs >> to be fixed too. And it all helps, if you overlay them with some >> transparacy adding GRB would be an awesome tool. >> >> I've been doing housenumer entries for weeks now, grb layer would >> defenitely be of good help. But never a dumb copy. >> >> Glenn >> >> On 05-01-15 15:05, Gilbert Hersschens wrote: >> > Guys, >> > >> > Don't get overly exited about the building shapes. The quality of those >> > shapes is quite variable. For free standing houses they are OK - in some >> > cases even excellent, but for urban areas they are not very useful, >> > certainly not as a source for import. I have been using those shapes for >> > quite a while for comparison in cases where severe projection distortion >> > and strong shadows gave me a hard time to figure out the shape of a >> > particular building and in many cases the shapes in GRB were not better >> > or even worse than my own "guesstimation". >> > They're OK for "second opinions" but I would never use a tool to import >> > those shapes. >> > Just my 2 cents. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
