<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">If you take a look at 942 Bridle Path Crescent for example whilst it isn't exactly square the deviations from 90 degrees to me are relatively minor. I assume that this is the sort of thing you are talking about?<br></div><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"><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=942%20Bridle%20Path%20Crescent%20kingston#map=19/44.25311/-76.59308">https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=942%20Bridle%20Path%20Crescent%20kingston#map=19/44.25311/-76.59308</a></div><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">Are we expecting too high a standard?</div><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">Cheerio John<br></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 21:54, Pierre Béland via Talk-ca <<a href="mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</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"><div><div class="gmail-m_-1562288414245237968ydp65b38472yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div><div><span><div>Nate je viens juste de publier les résultats pour Kingston. Un
ratio de 66% de polygones avec formes irrégulières. A voir si la
simplification éliminerait les noeuds qui ont pour effet de créer des
formes irrégulières. <br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Je
n'ai pas encore regardé de près les résultats. Cependant, m on
expérience en République démocratique du Congo depuis l'an dernier,
Kisenso et récemment Butembo, a montré qu'a partir de ces diagostics, la
validation / correction si nécessaire des polygones permettait de
réduire fortement les ratios, et ce sous les 3% des bâtiments.</div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Je pense aussi qu'il faut prendre le temps de corriger les données qui risque de ne pas être modifiées par la suite. <br></div></span><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail-m_-1562288414245237968ydp65b38472signature"><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(0,0,191);font-weight:bold"> <br><font face="garamond, new york, times, serif">Pierre </font><br></span></div></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="gmail-m_-1562288414245237968ydp9cd48a1fyahoo_quoted_8882173717" class="gmail-m_-1562288414245237968ydp9cd48a1fyahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(38,40,42)">
<div>
Le samedi 26 janvier 2019 21 h 06 min 39 s HNE, Nate Wessel <<a href="mailto:bike756@gmail.com" target="_blank">bike756@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="gmail-m_-1562288414245237968ydp9cd48a1fyiv0112917300"><div>
<p>James, <br clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
</p>
<p>Best,<br clear="none">
</p>
<div class="gmail-m_-1562288414245237968ydp9cd48a1fyiv0112917300moz-signature">Nate Wessel<br clear="none">
<span style="font-size:10px;color:rgb(119,119,119)">Jack of all trades, Master
of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="http://natewessel.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">NateWessel.com</a></span>
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</div><br></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</blockquote></div>