I think, Montreal's OSMappers would appreciate to discuss the import of
the buildings there first on the local list. By the way, John, I have
never said I would be taking the lead for the entirety of Québec (at
least, at the moment). However, I feel that the import should be
discussed on the liste OSM de Québec first.
Danny, I disagree with you on the import of building blocks. I find it
much more tedious to discern them later, then splitting them into single
buildings first before importing, because, I think, you need to know
your neighbourhood very well to find unsplit buildings in the OSM
database. Doing this for a whole town or even city (like Montreal) would
take much longer than pre-processing.
As for the rest, I have some understanding for the impatience of
OSMappers about the moratorium on the import - as quite some time has
passed and the discussion hasn't really moved on nor has the development
of the countrywide import plan [1] - last change there was beginning of
February.
Having looked at the Microsoft data and compared quality to the Open
Building Database in two places (Montréal, QC and Williams Lake, BC), I
would suggest to refrain from using it as a source for importing, unless
you verify them for small areas (but then you can almost draw them by
hand). In dense areas like downtown Montréal the building footprints are
in many cases plainly wrong (see my contribution to this list on
2019-03-02, 19h57 EST), in more scattered areas and suburban landscapes
buildings are randomly aligned and quite some buildings are missing (my
unverified estimate is about 5-10%).
As for the Open Building database, it is important to discern the data
by the sources as each municipality that contributed data might have
used different methods and has different mapping standards. Now add the
disagreement on this list about orthogonalization and building details.
I think, this suggests breaking up the import plan in smaller batches;
for the start it can be cloned from the original one, but the
pre-processing and import process might differ due to how data sources
might need to be treated as well as how local OSM communities would like
to go forward.
What do you reckon?
Tim
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada_Building_Import
On 2019-03-15 14:01, John Whelan wrote:
Which I think comes back to defining the local mappers.
There has been discussion on Montreal as well and not all Ontario thinks
the same way. Ottawa local mappers for example have different opinions
to Pierre and Nate on what is acceptable and I'm under the impression
that not everyone in Toronto agrees with Nate's position.
We seem to be blocking out parts of the country such as Montreal is this
a reasonable approach?
Can we find someway to loosely define local groups and their areas of
responsibility and how to contact them?
For example one small Ontario city has to my knowledge one OpenStreetMap
mapper who maps very occasionally. My understanding is they would be
quite happy to see an import happen but many of the buildings have
already been mapped although not to the accuracy that the Stats Can data
offers. How do you deal with these smaller cities and townships?
Thanks
Cheerio John
Paul Norman via Talk-ca wrote on 2019-03-15 1:45 PM:
On 2019-03-15 9:07 a.m., Andrew Lester wrote:
I disagree. Silence won't solve anything.
I'm speaking here as a local BC mapper, and I strongly disa gree with
these recent imports.
I'm also a BC mapper, and have only seen the consultation happen over
Ontario, not BC.
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
--
Sent from Postbox
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
_______________________________________________
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
