If they weren't hand traced, how were they made? I don't believe I've
actually seen any documentation on this. Do we know how these buildings
footprints were made? Just because we didn't trace them from imagery
ourselves doesn't mean someone working for a city GIS department didn't
do exactly the same thing some time ago.
We're concerned with squaring because buildings generally have right
angles. If the data don't have right angles too, then like you said it
likely indicates poor quality data.
Best,
Nate Wessel
Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning
NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com>
On 2/2/19 10:48 AM, Danny McDonald wrote:
On squaring buildings, no one has yet been explained why buildings
should be square. My understanding is that non-square buildings are a
warning sign for mapathons with hand-traced buildings - the lack of
squaring is often noticeable for hand-traced buildings, and indicative
of generally poor building footprints. That doesn't apply here, since
the buildings involved are not hand-traced (at least in Toronto). In
fact, the imported footprints are generally extremely accurate, much
better than would (or could) be done by hand.
It seems like the automated verification tool (of checking whether
buildings are square or not) is being misapplied in this case.
DannyMcD
_______________________________________________
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
