I agree that the use of closed software for this is not ideal, though I think it's far from the most worrying thing about this whole process. Perhaps that says more about the rest of the process though... I'm glad we're at least talking about cleaning up the data now!

If anyone is interested, I've documented some open-source code for cleaning up building geometries for another import: https://github.com/Nate-Wessel/hamilton-import

Some of the same PostGIS scripts could easily be reused here, especially the simplification step, which takes account of any shared walls.

Best,

Nate Wessel
Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning
NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com>

On 3/28/19 10:03 AM, Roman Auriti wrote:
Why is it that FME seems to be a tool that's OK to use for OSM when someone replied that they could use PostGIS and was shut down by someone else replying  'I'm not installing postgesql for you to accept simplification'? Does anyone else find it a little ironic that the community would move forward with proprietary software over open software?

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:46 AM Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com <mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

    Buildings where there is no available municipal data

    Sent from Galaxy S7

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *From:* John Whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com
    <mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>>
    *Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2019 9:32:32 AM
    *To:* Begin Daniel
    *Cc:* Talk-ca; keith hartley
    *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import
    Are you talking about the older CANVEC data or the data that Stats
    has released which is really municipal data?

    Thanks John

    Begin Daniel wrote on 2019-03-28 8:31 AM:
    Someone has compared Bing and Canvec data in rural areas?

    Sent from Galaxy S7

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *From:* OSM Volunteer stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com>
    <mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com>
    *Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:52:02 PM
    *To:* Talk-ca
    *Cc:* keith hartley
    *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import
    Ah, good dialog ensues.  Municipality by municipality, in
    conjunction with BOTH the StatsCan and Bing data, the right
    things are getting noticed, the right things are getting
    human-realized at what the next steps are to do.  It gets better.

    Yay.  Stitch it together.  One municipality at a time.  One
    province at a time.  Pretty soon, after a few revisions of data
    and back-and-forths between municipalities and province-wide data
    checking, you've got something.  There, you go.

    SteveA

    > On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:23 PM, keith hartley
    <keith.a.hart...@gmail.com> <mailto:keith.a.hart...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > The patchwork of municipalities is at least useful, before we
    didn't have a framework for adding this data, but at least we do
    now thanks to the umbrella license @ Stats Canada. We're a big
    country with very few, but very skilled OSM mappers (IE gecho111
    mapped all of regina's building footprints! ).
    >
    > I like the concept of the Bing data, but they may have to do
    another few tries, or maybe retain their Neural network. - Is
    there anywhere where the Bing data looks nice? I found burbs in
    Winnipeg not bad, but there's some really weird elements when the
    source data is too simple (buildings in the middle of fields) or
    too complex (urban cores)
    >
    > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 6:29 AM John Whelan
    <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> <mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > The Stats Canada data comes from the municipalities. 
    Unfortunately there are over 3,000 in Canada so yes ideally each
    would be treated separately in reality each municipality doesn't
    have a group of skilled OSM mappers who are capable of setting up
    an import plan and doing the work although there is nothing to
    stop them doing so.
    >
    > Cheerio John


    _______________________________________________
    Talk-ca mailing list
    Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
    https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


    _______________________________________________
    Talk-ca mailing list
    Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org  <mailto: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 <mailto: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
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Reply via email to