[Imports-us] Address and Building Data Conflatation
Brian H Wilson
brian at wildsong.biz
Mon Jul 15 22:07:33 UTC 2013
On 07/15/2013 12:39 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> You're missing the context of that quote. The "should be in the form
> of point data" is in what form NYC would release their data
Yes I did miss it -- thanks for the clarification. I no longer feel like
I wasted that time.
I suspect that I can continue thinking about the problem and
differentiate between building types (houses vs barns) based on other
factors, it makes it a more interesting problem for me anyway. My local
group meets on Thursday, maybe I will bring it up there too. I will
continue to plug away at it as time permits.
> We expect anyone, with no external information, to be able to survey
> an area. Tax lots aren't really surveyable, which is why we're
> generally not in favor of including them on OSM.
This is an ASIDE -- I mentioned this "surveyable" concept to someone
locally and he laughed. Around here they ARE surveyable. Nearly everyone
has some kind of demarcation - a fence usually. At least a very close
approximation is quite visible.
My point was that the attributes are in the tax lot not the buildings,
not that I want to import tax lots. I have to cleanly transfer usable
attributes from tax lots to buildings. I am jealous that you have
buildings with attributes but probably won't move to NYC all the same.
> I agree that local knowledge and manual survey are the best form of
> data and what we should ideally be collecting. But then I think "A
> million buildings sure is a lot of buildings" and would prefer to
> start with *something*
Even 80,000 is a lot if you are working almost alone. Will get through
More information about the Imports-us