[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 
it anyway.



More information about the Imports-us mailing list