As an experienced local Ontario and Quebec mapper I don't see any major problems with Stats Can building quality. It's detailed and recent, it's the best dataset we could ever possibly get and it's far superior to Microsoft quality. Having many buildings with "almost square angles" in this dataset is not an issue as vast majority of such deviations cannot be seen with a naked eye. Unfortunately any orthogonalization algorithms will do more harm than good in such cases. Mapping for the Validator, just like mapping for the Renderer is a wrong way to map. Issues were raised, issues were addressed in the import plan. If there are any problems with some mappers violating any specific import plan rules such issues need to be pointed out so they can adjust their workflow. My 2 cents.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:55 AM Nate Wessel <bike...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just reported this to the data working group, in case you haven't > already. Hopefully they will step in! > > Cheers, > Nate Wessel > Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning > NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com> > > On 3/15/19 10:30 AM, Pierre Béland wrote: > > Réponse immédiate avec refus de discussion de la part de DannyMcD_imports. > Celui-ci indique qu'il prévoit continuer l'import. > voir https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67686901 > > There was a discussion, issues were raised, the problems (to the extent > that they existed at all) have been addressed. I plan to continue > importing, unless a *specific* valid issue is raised. Please do not contact > me again unless you have such an issue. > > La prochaine étape est je pense de contacter le Data Working Group. > > > Pierre > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > -- Best Regards, Yaro Shkvorets
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
