<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">My expectation was that the import would be based on the city's records of foundations for the buildings.</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">
I would not expect to see sheds etc.and I'd be quite happy to only get most of the buildings. The rest can be added by local mappers at a later date.<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">My expectation is they will be consistent and not some mapped from Bing, others from ESRI etc. <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"></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">There are estimated to be in excess of 11,000,000 buildings in Canada. I don't think we have enough skilled mappers to map them all from imagery.</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">My expectation is the import would give us a reasonable number of fairly accurate building outlines at relatively low cost in mapper time. Missing building imports from city open data are now fairly common in many parts of the world.</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">My expectation is that the building outlines would have additional tags added and that this would draw in less skilled mappers. At the same time corrections could be made to the outlines if deemed necessary.<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">It would avoid too many badly mapped buildings.</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">Before the import started it was raised in talk-ca and there was some discussion. I understand you were not a member at that time or took part in that discussion but that doesn't change the fact that the issue was discussed.</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">The idea of a single import plan came from talk-ca and that is why there is a single import plan covering the entire country and there was discussion on talk-ca on the point.<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">
The original plan on the wiki mentioned having some coordination in an area. I
don't think this happened but it was an attempt to give a louder local
voice as it was recognised it would be better if local mappers took the lead. <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">Different mappers have different ideas of what is acceptable. I think your standards are fairly high thus more demanding in resources and do we have enough resources? I don't think we do to import to the standard at which you are asking.</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">Could you clarify what you are saying?</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">I assume that for other parts of the country if they wish to continue and find the building outlines acceptable they may do so?</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">Thanks John<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">Thanks John<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"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 12:34, Nate Wessel <<a href="mailto:bike756@gmail.com">bike756@gmail.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">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>I had a chance this morning to work on cleaning up some of the
already-imported data in Toronto. I wanted to be a little
methodical about this, so I picked a single typical block near
where I live. All the building data on this block came from the
import and I did everything in one changeset:
<a class="gmail-m_-5302351558600178161moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66881357" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66881357</a><br>
</p>
<p>What I found was that: <br>
</p>
<p>1) Every single building needed squaring</p>
<p>2) Most buildings needed at least some simplification. <br>
</p>
<p>3) 42 buildings were missing. <br>
</p>
<p>I knew going in that the first two would be an issue, but what
really surprised me was just how many sheds had not been imported.
There are only 53 houses on the block, but 42
sheds/garages/outbuildings, some of them quite large, and none of
which had been mapped. <br>
</p>
<p>I haven't seen the quality of the outbuildings in the source
data, and maybe I would change my mind if I did, but I think if
we're going to do this import properly, we're going to have to
bring in the other half of the data. I had seen in the original
import instructions that small buildings were being excluded - was
there a reason for this?<br>
</p>
<p>I also want to say: given how long it took me to clean up and
properly remap this one block, I'll say again that the size of the
import tasks is way, way, way too large. There is absolutely no
way that someone could have carefully looked at and verified this
data as it was going in. I just spent a half hour fixing up
probably about one-hundredth of a task square. <br>
</p>
<p>We can do better than this!<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail-m_-5302351558600178161moz-signature">-- <br>
Nate Wessel<br>
<span style="font-size:10px;color:rgb(119,119,119)">Jack of all trades, Master
of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning<br>
<a href="http://natewessel.com" target="_blank">NateWessel.com</a></span>
<br>
<br>
</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>