Pieren wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>buildings should follow reality (which they apparently don't do at all
>in the cadastre version).
How can you say that from an aerial imagery ? It is also possible that
the cadastre is outdated. Like any source of contribution, including
local survey.
Pieren
Many of the buildings moving away from the one identified simply do not even fit
the footprint on the bing imagery and many of the 'divisions' seem to follow the
ridge of a building rather than a difference between roof colour. The current
blocks simply make no sense! It is not possible from the aerial imagery to
identify divisions so unless those divisions are identified by other means ...
such as a clear identification in Cadastra ... or better still by local
knowledge ... then the building should simply be an outline! Now that I have
scanned some of the French material I must say that it is of very low quality
and all of the stuff I have reviewed needs at least SOME work to bring it up to
a better standard. At best all one can say currently is 'there are some
buildings round about here' ... and stripping unsubstantiated detail would at
least be a start.
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
