Dave -
What is the collection date of the imagery used? I couldn't find reference
to it.
What would be the measure of "relatively" out of date? Outside of newly
developed areas, even imagery that is 5 years old could reasonably be
expected to be ~95% accurate over most of the country. (Based on building
completion estimates). So, isn't much of what's actually on the ground
actually depicted in imagery that's only a few years old?
Is there measured proof that filled maps are never QA'd? If so, why does
Google offer tools to do just that? If there is no proof, what is the basis
of your hypothesis?
What would stop OSMers from QAing this type of data collection prior to
inclusion in OSM?
Why is accuracy the primary measure of concern here? As opposed to, say:
completeness or consistency?
Would it be that big of a problem if someone mapped somewhere other than
where these building images are, as long as they were mapping?
Thanks, Jeff
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote:
> I understand what & why you're saying this, Nathan, but remember these
> images are all, relatively, out of date. I would rather that gaps were left
> to be filled with what's is actually on the ground rather than what was
> there a few years ago.
>
> I take pride that my city has newest buildings & roads mapped in OSM
> before *any* other mapping service. (I'm still getting around to adding the
> old, been there for centuries, houses)
>
> Having all areas filled with polygons of buildings doesn't actually
> encourage users to refill it with up to date data. More often than not,
> they think because *some* data is mapped it must be correct & go & map
> elsewhere.
>
> Personally I'd rather have (slightly) less, but more accurate data than
> blanket inaccurate data. When I first started ('09) I thought the opposite.
>
>
>
>
> On 07/01/2013 00:50, Nathan Mixter wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if this link has been posted before, but for those wondering
> how Google got their new buildings, there is a link at PC Magazine
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411232,00.asp. Apparently they
> recently uploaded 25M buildings done through an automated image recognition
> software.
>
> I've manually added most of the buildings in the city of Gilroy (
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?lon=-121.56369&lat=37.00553&zoom=17) so I
> was curious to find out where they got their data from. I thought maybe the
> city or county had a secret source that I hadn't found. And I checked
> everywhere I could to find buildings that could have been imported.
>
> I was wondering if OSM could do the same thing. Could we buy as a group a
> program like Feature Analyst, eCognition or Imagine Objective and add
> buildings that way? We could combine the buildings with any existing
> address points available. I checked into it earlier this year and one
> program was about $2,000. But the money could be quickly raised. I know I
> would be willing to donate.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing
> listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
--
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
