<div dir="auto">Can't speak for the rest of the country as such, but I do know that the imagery quality in Newfoundland is rather poor. Recognizing building shapes would technically work, but the result would be poorly aligned boxes, not accurate house shapes. We also do not have a local working group as far as I am aware so any importation would need to be brought to the whole list or such a group created.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 29, 2018 4:47 PM, "john whelan" <<a href="mailto:jwhelan0112@gmail.com">jwhelan0112@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">
<span style="font-family:Symbol;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-CA">·</span><span lang="EN-CA"> </span><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-CA">NRCan is
working on a methodology
to extract building
footprints, including
topographic elevation
and height attributes,
from LiDAR<br><br><br></span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-CA">Traditionally OSM has not been happy with this sort of thing. The accuracy can be poor.<br><br></span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-CA">We probably need to think about this since the BC2020i project had this mentioned and Stats Can has given it a mention also. I'm not promoting it nor saying its bad but it will almost certainly be raised shortly.<br><br></span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-CA">First if an import was done using this data who would be the local group to approve it? I suspect because it covers the entire country it would be the talk-ca group. The date would come through the TB portal so licensing is not an issue. Or it could be split into regions with regional local groups making decisions.<br><br></span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-CA">The other very big question is to do with data quality. So far nothing that is machine learnt from imagery has consistently met the expectations of OpenStreetMap.<br><br></span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-CA">Note to Pierre I'm not sure if you are on the talk-ca mailing list but any feedback you might have on the data quality side would be welcome and will be shared amongst the group.<br><br></span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-CA">Thoughts?<br><br></span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-CA">Thanks John<br></span></b></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>