[Imports] Microsoft Buildings Import Inquiry

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 20:04:47 UTC 2019


On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM John Whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
> By this definition any import of data that has as part of its process each item added that the item is inspected visually using the todo list is not an import.
>
> There are a lot of building outlines that are being brought in in this way currently.  Are they exempt from the import guidelines?

There's a whole continuum here, and some room for judgment. Consider
the following:

1. I'm out mapping in my neighbourhood, and forget to jot down a house
number. When I trace the building footprint, I notice the extra house
and look it up on a paper print of the tax map.

2. The same scenario, except that I have a database of address points
and look up the address point there.

3. The same scenario, but I open that database as a separate layer in
JOSM swap layers, and click on the address point.

4. The same scenario, but I copy-and-paste the house number rather
than retyping it.

5. The same scenario, but I develop a plugin to search for address
points within the building footprint and offer me the opportunity to
accept or reject them.

6. The same scenario, but now I do it for all building footprints in a
selected region that don't have addresses already, accepting or
rejecting them one at a time.

7. The same scenario, only instead of a visible area in JOSM, I use
the entire city or county.

I think that nearly everyone would agree that 1 is not an import, and
that 7 is. (despite the fact that I'm still offered the opportuinity
to accept or reject addresses.)

I've been entirely comfortable with up to about item 4. without
discussion, on the grounds that it's not a mechanical edit.  Even 5.
doesn't bother me all that much, and I've been tracing enough building
footprints lately that I think it might add value for me to spend a
few hours working that idea up. Beyond that, I'd want to talk, but I'd
expect that given the fact that the data are Public Domain by law,
that applying addresses to existing building footprints that don't
have them would be relatively noncontroversial. (Yes, Frederik, I know
that you'd object!)

There's room for judgment here. Some would content that if you
consulted any external data source, ever, regarding the feature, that
it's an import. (Some would take the hard line that if I learnt about
the existence of a trail by reading about it in a copyrighted
guidebook, that I'm permanently mentally contaminated and shouldn't
even map that trail in the field!) There are others who would contend
that as long as the data are license-compatible and our handling
comports with the guidelines for mechanical edits, that the
formalities are unnecessary.

I'm not aware of any successful effort to draw a bright line.



More information about the Imports mailing list