[Imports] Burlington VT Building Footprints

[Andrew Guertin]

On 01/04/2013 01:14 PM, William Morris wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> After abandoning my fiddling with remotely-sensed building footprints, I
> just asked the city of Burlington if they'd allow their building footprint
> data to be added to OSM under the ODbL terms. They're perfectly happy to do
> so, which means I've got just under 10k structures to import. They are:
> 
> - Foundation-level accurate
> - Not overly-node-y
> - Somewhat regularly updated since 1979 (there are a few omissions)
> 
> I've conflict-detected the lot of them with the current OSM data - Andrew
> Guertin and a few others have already done some tremendous work here, so
> none of the new footprints overlap existing features. I've also pored over
> the dataset manually and deleted outdated structures - it pays to be a
> local.
> 
> Here's the data (7.6MB):
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/s5kvaribxlu4rpd/btv_prints.osm
> 
> Please let me know what can be done to reach community standards on this
> before importing.
> 
> -Bill

Hi Bill,

This is awesome!

I found one conflict: the price chopper building on 7 south. I mapped
the version in OSM as a relation, which is probably why it escaped
detection.

I'd love to see a separate file that has just the buildings that did
conflict. But mostly just 'cause I want to see whether the ones I mapped
are up to par with this set ;)

The buildings on UVM that didn't get conflict detected out aren't as
good as the ones we're working on internally; not a problem though, I
shouldn't have any trouble overwriting them when that project finally
unstalls itself.

Spatial accuracy seems pretty good w.r.t. bing: most buildings are dead
on, some are a few meters off.

I'm a bit concerned about the fact that most buildings haven't been
orthogonalized--will it look bad once rendered?

Poking around, I found a building at 44.4812, -73.1909 that's a triangle
but shouldn't be, and a few buildings that don't exist according to bing
(garages especially seem to be common). As a local user, though, I
definitely don't want this held back just because of those.

--Andrew