Hi, Am 11/05/2019 um 21.09 schrieb Simon Poole: > Just a general remark on the technical issue that sparked of this > discussion: squaring buildings is not primarily about improving data > quality. Non-square buildings are simply visually annoying when > rendered, so much that I support squaring them "as a rule" too when it > can reasonably be assumed that there are 90° angles in the actual > building outline. But I'm not kidding myself that it improves "quality". > If we wanted to define quality of building outlines in OSM we would > probably be talking about deviations from the buildings footprint area, > average deviations from the outline and so on, any of these could be > very small even without squaring. Actually, squaring might impact them > negatively, particularly when the outline is rough, but as said: square > buildings are just so much easier on the eyes :-).
Are buildings with rectangular corners buildings mappers from developed countries want to see on a map because they look more professional/tidy? ;-) Best regards Michael -- Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten ausgenommen) I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
