<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>James, <br>
</p>
<p>It does seem that someone will need to properly simplify the data
since you don't seem willing to do the necessary work. I've
already offered to help, but I can't do it today, or tomorrow for
that matter. My suggestion, again, is that we slow down and take
the time to do this right. Rushing ahead can only lead to hurt
feelings, angry emails, and extra work for everyone. Given how
much editing goes on in the areas I know, many of these imported
buildings might not be touched again for another decade - can't we
make them right the first time?<br>
</p>
<p>I think Pierre is on the right track here with his thoughtful
analysis of the buildings that have been imported so far - this is
the kind of stuff that I'm talking about when I say we need some
validation. Some questions that I'd like to see answered (Pierre,
when you have some more time!): just how many buildings imported
so far are not orthogonal, but seem like they should be? What
percentage of buildings would benefit from simplification, and is
the problem worse/better in some areas compared to others?</p>
<p>I actually don't think the problem is technically difficult to
solve - we just have to understand the nature and extent off the
problem before we rush to solutions. That's the point of
validation - understanding what the problems are.<br>
</p>
<p>Best,<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Nate Wessel<br>
<span style="font-size:10px;color:#777">Jack of all trades, Master
of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning<br>
<a href="http://natewessel.com">NateWessel.com</a></span>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/26/19 2:10 PM, James wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANk4qi8fKaGtwYoqVUqU32mdt0VmKy=NkSaQYt0W-b3sMci03A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">I'm not installing postgesql for you to accept
simplification, that YOU said was required because there were 2x
as many points(which was proved wrong via the simplification) If
you want to have fun with the file, go a head.</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Sat., Jan. 26, 2019, 2:00 p.m. Nate Wessel
<<a href="mailto:bike756@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">bike756@gmail.com</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Building count doesn't really have anything to do with
preserving topology, and I'm not sure a visual inspection
would cut it - Can you look at the documentation for this
tool and verify that it preserves the topology of polygon
layers?<br>
<br>
This is a good illustration of the (potential) problem:<br>
<a class="m_-7229874272090800632moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/wiki/UsersWikiSimplifyPreserveTopology"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/wiki/UsersWikiSimplifyPreserveTopology</a><br>
</p>
<div class="m_-7229874272090800632moz-signature">Nate Wessel<br>
<span style="font-size:10px;color:#777">Jack of all
trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban
Planning<br>
<a href="http://natewessel.com" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">NateWessel.com</a></span>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="m_-7229874272090800632moz-cite-prefix">On
1/26/19 12:31 PM, James wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">it does if you saw my analysis of
building(polygon count) remains the same also visually
inspected a few and there was preservation of them </div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Sat., Jan. 26, 2019, 11:43 a.m. Nate
Wessel <<a href="mailto:bike756@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">bike756@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Does that preserve topology between buildings
that share nodes?<br>
</p>
<div
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153moz-signature">Nate
Wessel<br>
<span style="font-size:10px;color:#777">Jack of
all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate
in Urban Planning<br>
<a href="http://natewessel.com" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">NateWessel.com</a></span>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153moz-cite-prefix">On
1/26/19 11:31 AM, James wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">no need for scripts, qgis does
this fine via the Vector menu -> Geometry
tools -> Simplify Geometries utility. I
simplified it to 20cm with the , but I think
40cm is too aggressive.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I already have scripts to
compile it into the dataformat needed to be
served.</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Sat., Jan. 26, 2019, 11:16
a.m. Nate Wessel <<a
href="mailto:bike756@gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">bike756@gmail.com</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>The wiki page is indeed looking a whole
lot better right now - my thanks and
congrats to everyone who contributed!
There is a still a ways to go, but we seem
to be getting there quickly. <br>
</p>
<p>I'll echo John in saying that I would
appreciate hearing from some of the other
people who chimed in to express their
doubts about the import. For my part, I'm
not satisfied yet - no surprise, I'm sure
;-). I'm thrilled that we're talking and
working together in the open, and that
addresses the biggest concern I had with
the import. <br>
</p>
<p>These are the big issues I see remaining:
<br>
</p>
<p>1. <b>Validation</b>: Ideally I'd like
to see a good chunk (more than half) of
the data that has been imported already
validated by another user before we
proceed with importing more data.
Validation is part of the import plan, so
the import isn't done until validation is
done anyway. My hope is that this will
flag any issues that we can fix before
moving forward, and give people time to
chime in on the import plan who maybe
haven't already. I don't want to see
everything imported and only then do we
start systematically checking the quality
of our work, if ever. If no one wants to
do it now, no one is going to want to do
it later either, and that doesn't bode
well.<br>
</p>
<p>2. <b>Simplification</b>: James'
analysis showed that simplification could
save several hundred megabytes (and
probably more) in Ontario alone. This is
totally worth doing, but we have to
document the process and be very careful
not to lose valuable data. I believe there
was also a concern raised about orthogonal
buildings being not quite orthogonal -
this is something that we should handle at
the same time, again, very carefully. We
certainly don't want to coerce every
building into right angles. With respect
to James, I'm not sure this is something
that can be done with a few clicks in
QGIS. I would be willing to develop a
script to handle this, but it would take
me about a week or two to find the time to
do this properly. We would need to
simultaneously A) simplify straight lines
B) orthogonalize where possible and C)
preserve topology between connected
buildings. This is not impossible, it just
takes time and care to do correctly.<br>
</p>
<p>3. <b>Speed and Size</b>: To John's
point, it seems like people certainly are
not sticking to the areas they know,
unless they get around a whole hell of a
lot more than I do, and yes this is a
problem. The whole Toronto region was
basically imported by two people: DannyMcD
seems to have done the entire west side of
the region (hundreds of square kilometers)
while zzptichka imported the entire east
side of the region (again a truly massive
area), both in the matter of a week or
two. They only stopped in the middle where
there were more buildings already and
things got a bit more difficult. The
middle is where I live, and when I saw
that wave of buildings coming, I sounded
the alarms. <br>
This is way too fast - no one person
should be able to import the GTA in a
couple weeks. A big part of the problem,
IMO is that the task squares are much too
large, and allow/require a user to import
huge areas at once. At the least, some of
the task squares in central Toronto are
impossibly large, including hundreds or
thousands of buildings already mapped in
OSM. Conflation on these, if done properly
would take the better part of a day, and
people are likely to get sloppy. <br>
I would like to see the task squares
dramatically reduced in size as a way of
slowing people down, helping them stick to
areas they know well, and keeping them
focused on data quality over quantity.
This would also make the process much more
accessible to local mappers who don't
already have tons of experience importing.<br>
</p>
<p>4. <b>Conflation</b>: I don't think the
current conflation plan is adequate(ly
documented). In practice, what people are
actually doing may be fine, but I really
want to see some better thought on how to
handle existing buildings. Right now the
wiki says for example "<i>Before merging
buildings data switch to OSM layer and
see if there are any clusters of
buildings without any meaningful tags
you can delete to save time when merging</i>."<br>
With respect to whoever wrote this, this
approach seems to value time over data
integrity and I just don't think that's
how OSM should operate. We need to be more
careful with the existing data, and we
need to show that care with clear and
acceptable guidelines for handling the
data that countless people have already
spent their time contributing. We don't do
OSM any favours by carelessly deleting and
replacing data. Help convince me that this
isn't what's happening.<br>
</p>
<p>Until some effort has been made to
address these concerns, I will continue to
oppose this import moving forward. And to
be clear, I don't want to oppose this
import - I have too much else I should be
focusing on. I just don't want to see
another shoddy import in Toronto (or
elsewhere). <br>
</p>
<p>Best,<br>
</p>
<div
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165moz-signature">Nate
Wessel<br>
<span style="font-size:10px;color:#777">Jack
of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD
candidate in Urban Planning<br>
<a href="http://natewessel.com"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">NateWessel.com</a></span>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165moz-cite-prefix">On
1/26/19 8:49 AM, john whelan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">I'm
not certain how this addresses the
concerns raised by <span
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Andrew
Lester and </span></div>
<table
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165gmail-ajC"
cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165gmail-UszGxcm_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165gmail-ajv">
<td colspan="2"
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165gmail-gG"><span
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165gmail-gI"></span><br>
</td>
<td colspan="2"
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165gmail-gL"><span
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165gmail-gI"><span
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165gmail-qu"><span
name="Pierre Béland via
Talk-ca"
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165gmail-gD">Pierre
Béland<span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">, </span></span></span></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">and
I seem to recall one other person
who expressed concerns.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">I
think it is important that their
concerns are addressed.</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">Perhaps
they would be kind enough to
comment on whether or not this
approach addresses their concerns.</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><span
class="gmail_default">Do we have a
concern that some mappers have
been importing buildings further
than say twenty kilometers from
where they live?</span><br>
</font><br>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">Have
you found volunteers of local
mappers in </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">
<div class="gmail_default">Alberta</div>
<div class="gmail_default">British
Columbia</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Manitoba</div>
<div class="gmail_default">New
Brunswick</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Newfoundland
and Labrador</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Northwest
Territories</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Nova
Scotia</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Nunavut</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Ontario</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Prince
Edward Island</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Quebec</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Saskatchewan</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Yukon</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Who will
be willing to oversee the import
in each province?</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Does this
mean the smaller provinces may not
see any data?</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">How will
you handle cities of say 80,000
population in a smaller province
who have an interest in seeing
their buildings available but have
no idea on how to contact the
provincial group?</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">If we go
back to earlier times it was a
suggestion in talk-ca that we use
the single import approach and it
was mentioned at the time there
didn't seem to be a list of local
mapper groups in Canada.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">I'm not
saying the approach of a single
import as far as the import list
and talk-ca followed by a
procedure of locally organised
mappers bringing in the data is
wrong I'm just trying to ensure
the project moves forward and we
are in agreement. </div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Thanks </div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Cheerio
John</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr"
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165gmail_attr">On
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 00:17, OSM
Volunteer stevea <<a
href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Thanks
to some good old-fashioned OSM
collaboration, both the <a
href="https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Canada_Building_Import"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Canada_Building_Import</a>
and <a
href="https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020#NEWS.2C_January_2019"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020#NEWS.2C_January_2019</a>
have been updated. (The latter points
to the former).<br>
<br>
In short, it says there are now
step-by-steps to begin an import for a
particular province, and that as the
steps get fine-tuned (they look good,
but might get minor improvements),
building a community of at least one
or two mappers in each of the
provinces with data available, the
Tasking Manager can and will lift the
"On Hold" or "Stopped" status.<br>
<br>
Nice going, Canada!<br>
<br>
See you later,<br>
<br>
SteveA<br>
California<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
<a class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="m_-7229874272090800632m_-1392011054493208153m_-501377306698867165moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>