<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Having reviewed the changeset, here are my 2 cents. OsmCha link for reference: <a href="https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/66881357/" target="_blank">https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/66881357/</a></div><div dir="ltr"><br><div>1) IMO squaring is not needed in most of those cases. </div><div>- You can see difference between square and non-square ONLY at high zoom level. And even then, it's not visible to the naked eye. We are talking about inches here. </div></div></div>- Sometimes squaring is plain wrong to be applied here. Even though you paid very close attention you managed to square a couple of non-square buildings. Like this facade is not supposed to be square for example: <a href="https://i.imgur.com/H10360K.png" target="_blank">https://i.imgur.com/H10360K.png</a> I might be OK with squaring almost-square angles if there is a simple plugin for that. The way you propose to do it, by going building-by-building and pressing Q is completely unsustainable and sometimes makes things bad.<br>- Another thing, this particular neighbourhood is pretty dense and mature and therefore has mostly square buildings. I can only imagine how bad it would become if you ask people to square things in newer developments where buildings often come in irregular shapes. <div>- Like mentioned above, many successful import didn't require squaring. In this Texas one, 100% of buildings are not perfectly square: <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/32.97102/-96.78231">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/32.97102/-96.78231</a><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><br></div></blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>2) Simplification is good to have, sure. Obviously standard Shift-Y in JOSM is a no-starter. If we can find a good way to simplify ways without losing original geometry and causing overlapping issues we should do it. But even then, reducing 500MB province extract to 499MB should not be a hill to die on.</div><div><br></div><div>3) Manually mapping all the sheds and garages is completely unsustainable. Having seen over the last couple of years how much real interest there is in doing actual work importing buildings in Canada (almost zero) adding this requirement will undoubtedly kill the project. Sure you will meticulously map your own neighbourhood, but who will map thousands of other places with the same attention to details? Also, you did rather poor job at classifying buildings you add, tagging them all with building=yes. Properly classifying secondary buildings like sheds and garages in a project like this is pretty important IMO. I agree with John, we should leave sheds to local mappers to trace manually.</div><div><br></div><div>To sum up, yes we can do better. But this is the perfect example when "better" is the enemy of "good".</div></div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 12:34 PM Nate Wessel <<a href="mailto:bike756@gmail.com" target="_blank">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_2570815994900691427gmail-m_-4280084153721892123moz-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_2570815994900691427gmail-m_-4280084153721892123moz-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><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_2570815994900691427gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Best Regards,<br> Yaro Shkvorets</div></div>