<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(11,83,148)">> Buildings as nodes is not a recognized way of mapping them that has<br>
broad support. Almost without exception the only people doing this are<br>
newbie HOT mappers who don't know the correct procedure. So this is a<br>
mistake that should be fixed, just like non-square buildings or<br>
unconnected roads.</span><br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">I do a lot of validation and clean up on HOT projects and in the areas they map. I usually check the number of edits a mapper has done and in my experience HOT mappers may map a building three times, they may not square buildings, the buildings might be three times the size they should be, they map them in odd shapes. I see villages tagged building=residential but its very rare that I see buildings as nodes from HOT mappers. Generally they look at the training guides which describe mapping buildings as ways.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">The mappers I have seen using nodes for buildings, typically tagging nodes building=hut, are generally experienced mappers who have used nodes for street numbers in the past often from Europe. When I come across them I generally mention that the HOT convention is to map the outline.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">The concerns I do have about mapping buildings as ways are more on the data quality side. I'm currently looking at Malawi and I'm seeing a number of sites where buildings have been mapped multiple times and I've added tags to a few hundred that have been left area=yes. Some of these are more than a month or two old.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">Personally I'd like to see more use of the JOSM building_tool plugin because at the moment there are many areas where you cannot depend on all the buildings having been mapped, mapped just the once or that the area of the building is anywhere near correct.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">Cheerio John<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 25 May 2017 at 11:08, Andrew Buck <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrew.r.buck@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrew.r.buck@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The real solution is to "upgrade" these nodes into properly mapped<br>
buildings with a way. We really should be discouraging people mapping<br>
as nodes like this as it is largely a waste of time since someone has to<br>
map it as a way later on anyway and when they do they either need to<br>
delete the existing nodes or merge them into the buildings to preserve<br>
history (but also taking much longer).<br>
<br>
Adding renderings to maps only encourages people to take the easy way<br>
out in the short term and create more bad data. We should not encourage<br>
this and should be actively trying to fix the nodes already in the<br>
database. I have done this on a few occasions and have probably knocked<br>
out a few thousand of them, but unless we get serious about cleaning<br>
them up we will end up with more and more of them.<br>
<br>
Buildings as nodes is not a recognized way of mapping them that has<br>
broad support. Almost without exception the only people doing this are<br>
newbie HOT mappers who don't know the correct procedure. So this is a<br>
mistake that should be fixed, just like non-square buildings or<br>
unconnected roads.<br>
<br>
-AndrewBuck<br>
<br>
<br>
On 05/25/2017 04:09 AM, Bjoern Hassler wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> just to follow up on the buildings discussion - it seems that it's not<br>
> likely that node-buildings will be rendered in the standard cartography,<br>
> see <a href="https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/806" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/<wbr>gravitystorm/openstreetmap-<wbr>carto/issues/806</a>.<br>
><br>
> However, I think there is a case for rendering node-buildings in the HOT<br>
> cartography? I'll file a suggestion here: <a href="https://github.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/</a><br>
> hotosm/HDM-CartoCSS.<br>
><br>
> Bjoern<br>
><br>
> On 23 May 2017 at 04:54, Rob Savoye <<a href="mailto:rob@senecass.com">rob@senecass.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On 05/22/2017 01:44 PM, john whelan wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> consider and it is a major part of engineering. No matter what<br>
>> compression<br>
>>> system is used four nodes will always take up four times the space as one<br>
>>> node. Maybe not with .7z compression looking for strings in the long lat<br>
>>> but its a good rule of thumb. Again OSM is now running the largest<br>
>>> database known in whatever it is running in, I forget the name. It's<br>
>><br>
>> OSM uses PostgreSQL with the postgis and hstore extensions. I run it<br>
>> locally to save on bandwidth latency, plus it works offline too cause<br>
>> connectivity is poor around here. Mobile bandwidth is getting better all<br>
>> the time all over the planet though. Adding data to OSM is better to be<br>
>> done the way most others do it than worrying about bandwidth.<br>
>><br>
>> Looking into a few OSM files, I see <node> used as a building that<br>
>> hasn't been mapped as a polygon, ie.. just a waypoint. That's useful<br>
>> enough for most people trying to find someplace. For a building that<br>
>> actually has it's dimensions mapped, then it's a <way>, with references<br>
>> to each <node>. It depends what type of info you want from your map.<br>
>> When generating a display map, a <node> won't appear as a building,<br>
>> it'll just be a cute icon. If you want to see a whole building shape, it<br>
>> needs to be a <way>. Some buildings have both.<br>
>><br>
>> - rob -<br>
>><br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> HOT mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org">HOT@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/hot</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> HOT mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org">HOT@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/hot</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
HOT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org">HOT@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/hot</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>