I think at this point in time we need to try to get some sort of agreement on how to proceed. My first thought would be to ban the youngsters so anyone under 65 shouldn't be involved. That way it would slow the process down unfortunately it isn't really practical.
I think we need time to digest and review what has been done so far. I think it would be sensible for a different mapper to go over the imported areas using the task manager and verify the buildings against Bing or other imagery to ensure we haven't introduced an imaginary town etc. I do think we need to break the import up into more manageable chunks. Whether these need to be at municipal level or not needs thought. The case for is that would allow the data from different sources to be carefully checked over. The case against is there are a lot of municipalities and in places like Manitoba there are very few mappers on the ground. Basically from a population point of view Canada is a collection of around half a dozen cities and these have a local OSM community. Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto for example. Once you take these out then you have much smaller numbers. I'm not certain about Calgary and Edmonton whether they have a local community or not. Quebec with its own mailing list is self contained and I think will sort itself out in time. Montreal is working together to sort something out. Terraced houses in Ottawa we just have the outline with a tag of terrace. This was the way they were mapped even before the City of Ottawa import. Units may have an individual address node. At the moment I favour breaking the country up into provinces and for each province depending on the number of buildings I might split it up again. So Ontario would be something like Ontario rural and Toronto but I'm not quite sure of where Toronto begins and ends. Thoughts and bear in mind that Microsoft has released buildings for Canada as well. I haven't noticed an import plan but it would be fairly easy for someone to bring in some buildings so to retain some sort of control a plan might well be useful. Thanks John On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 15:34, Tim Elrick <o...@elrick.de> wrote: > 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 > listTalk-ca@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
