Can't speak for the rest of the country as such, but I do know that the imagery quality in Newfoundland is rather poor. Recognizing building shapes would technically work, but the result would be poorly aligned boxes, not accurate house shapes. We also do not have a local working group as far as I am aware so any importation would need to be brought to the whole list or such a group created.
On Jan 29, 2018 4:47 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > · > > > *NRCan is working on a methodology to extract building footprints, > including topographic elevation and height attributes, from LiDAR* > > > *Traditionally OSM has not been happy with this sort of thing. The > accuracy can be poor.* > > > *We probably need to think about this since the BC2020i project had this > mentioned and Stats Can has given it a mention also. I'm not promoting it > nor saying its bad but it will almost certainly be raised shortly.* > > > *First if an import was done using this data who would be the local group > to approve it? I suspect because it covers the entire country it would be > the talk-ca group. The date would come through the TB portal so licensing > is not an issue. Or it could be split into regions with regional local > groups making decisions.* > > > *The other very big question is to do with data quality. So far nothing > that is machine learnt from imagery has consistently met the expectations > of OpenStreetMap.* > > > *Note to Pierre I'm not sure if you are on the talk-ca mailing list but > any feedback you might have on the data quality side would be welcome and > will be shared amongst the group.* > > > *Thoughts?* > > *Thanks John* > > _______________________________________________ > 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
