<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>May 15, 2023, 06:58 by osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><i>TL:DR: the first part is me explaining why I don't believe generic building=yes are useful the way newcomers are urged to add them. The comments focus only on "common good" PoIs (both because they are highly reusable, less likely to be worth competition, easier even for not OSM-survey focused apps and easier to find volunteers to moderate/accept them) in a way that maybe more than an anonymous user even from a completely different app could confirm seems a clear win-win. But if we're going to use OSM Notes, they could also be machine parseable from the start, and if data was added based on 1 or more Notes, then we help humans to keep some metadata of previous steps (like how many different people confirmed the type existed in the local area).</i><br></div><div><br></div><div>> Mateusz Konieczny said<br></div><div>> mapping accurate building=yes is highly helpful (low quality armchair mapping has dubious or negative utility, but mapping building=yes is not indicator of this - rather inaccurate guessing of building=* value is a bigger problem)<br></div><div><br></div><div>Let me give a real world example. Weeks ago on unofficial OpenStreetMap Telegram channel (message <a href="https://t.me/OpenStreetMapOrg/101372" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://t.me/OpenStreetMapOrg/101372</a> ) a mapper from Colombia complained that the buildings added in an area (near volcano Nevado del Ruiz) was visited by local civil defense. The building=yes (added by a human mapper, but geometry suggested Microsoft/buildingFootprints) actually was a... tree. Guayacanes and Yarumos to be more exact. He was pissed off on the chat, saying it already complained in the past.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Well, mapping nonexisting buildings not helpful.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The problem here is false data, not missing specific value of building=* tags<br></div><div dir="auto">(and people mapping trees as buildings should be asked to stop <br></div><div dir="auto">and get guidance and possibly also reverted.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This does not change that mapping actual buildings as building=yes is useful<br></div><div dir="auto">first step (as long as building=yes geometries match actual buildings).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>But even if it wasn't by invalid meaning (e.g. not a tree), it is still highly problematic<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">why? As long as building=yes geometries match actual buildings then it is useful<br></div><div dir="auto">first step (not claiming that it is the best possible first step or useful for everything,<br></div><div dir="auto">but I repeatedly use such data for my own orientation when travelling and planning<br></div><div dir="auto">travels). <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Accurate building=yes data is better than no data.</div> </body>
</html>