[Talk-ca] using image recognition to create building foot prints.

john whelan jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 29 23:56:50 UTC 2018


​The idea behind the building project is good.  Basically you need a
mixture of accurate building outlines and tags.  From there the
statisticians can work their magic.  This is true in Canada as well as
other parts of the world.  With OSM buildings and tags combined with open
source stats software R (R.org) you get ground floor GIS planning tools and
they are badly needed in Africa etc.  If we can pull it off this is good.

First Pierre's point that machine learning and imagery is a little
different to using radar type technology. If we would have had it available
in Nepal it would have saved a lot of problems.  Even today in Africa the
standard of building mapping would be much improved by the use of such
technology.

It isn't yet accepted by OSM as mainstream.  That is an issue we need to
get round before we can use the stuff.

However Canada has always been in the forefront of imports.  We have a
history of using NCR Canada’s data ie CANVEC and we are comfortable using
it.  Some parts we recognise are better quality than others.  We also have
within the mailing list some deep technical expertise which can be used to
evaluate the radar type technology for detecting building outlines.  I
think it will take time to get this technology accepted by OSM and that is
the point of this thread.

I think we have to accept that the BC2020i project is one that was not
dreamt up by the OSM community.  I think the idea came out of Alessandro of
Stats Canada and my understanding is the web page was put together by a
single person with little experience of OSM, the processes and politics
involved. There is demand for the data but OSM is more geared towards
mappers than customer demands.

What we have ended up with is a project with lots of words and aspirations
but little apparent understanding of what is involved.  The idea has been
picked up by High Schools and Universities and we are now getting
inexperienced mappers in with little training adding buildings to the map
in iD and the data quality is poor for some and that is an issue since it
reflects on the project itself.

There seems to be no project manager and that is an issue.  We’ve cleaned
up the wiki page to some extent.  There is a demand from schools and
Universities to get involved.  We need someone to put together guidance for
these people.

I take Pierre’s point that in an ideal world experienced local mappers
would map locally and take responsibility for their area importing when
appropriate.  Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world.

Cheerio John​


On 29 January 2018 at 17:59, OSM Volunteer stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com
> wrote:

> On Jan 29, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scruss at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2018-01-29 04:37 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> >>
> >> OSM is delighted to receive building data in Canada, truly we are.
> >> (Provided they are high-quality data).  I have heard the process of
> >> entering data into OSM, especially "bulk import" OD (which must match
> >> license compatibility against OSM's license, our ODbL) described as
> >> "inside baseball."  It is not.
> >
> > If you're gonna quote me, at least try to understand me, please.
>
> Stewart, I apologize if I misquoted you or took it out of context, that
> was not my intention.
>
> > The open data / OSM dialogue in Canada has been going something like
> > this, ever since I started working with municipal groups in 2011 or so:
> >
> > Municipal data advocate: Please use our data! It's under an open
> >       licence!
> >
> > OSM volunteer: But our licences aren't compatible!
> >
> > Municipal data advocate: But it's an open licence! Our lawyers say
> >       you'll be fine!
> >
> > OSM volunteer: But we need … (starts to reel off list of additional
> >       supporting docs)
> >
> > Municipal data advocate: Companies like Google and Nokia use our data
> >       with no problem. Use our data! We are giving it to you!
> >       Don't complain!
> >
> > OSM volunteer: but but the licence …
> >
> > (Municipal data advocate storms off in search of a someone more likely
> > to give them corporate recognition.)
> >
> > Some very tenacious OSM people and some very adaptable government people
> > have made things work in a few places in Canada.
>
> I both salute these efforts and bow deeply in obeisance at the good work
> done here by them.  These are the important seeds of the future, the acorns
> from which mighty oaks shall grow.  Yes, it will take time, effort,
> coordination, management and documentation.
>
> Simply put, (and I don't wish to be rude), "municipal data advocates"
> cannot assume that OSM is a "free ride," without some front-loaded effort
> at planning and further project guidance along the way.  We have our
> culture and methods in OSM, and that's the way it is.  I am hopeful, as
> inter-community cooperation is something Canada has been and is quite good
> at doing for its entire history.
>
> > Only when we have a way
> > forward on data licensing, then BC2020 would be an OSM project.
>
> I respectfully disagree.  Yes, "ways forward on data licensing" is vitally
> important, as it is a major obstacle.  However, BC2020, and the way that it
> has morphed into becoming by its very nature using OSM as a repository of
> data, IS an OSM project.  Therefore, it must hew to OSM tenets, like
> transparency, good communication, wiki updates, and in a project of scope
> this wide, sane and steady planning and project management.
>
> You can say that license compatibility is "slow going" (and you'd be
> right) but OSM is "up to" three cities (from one, Ottawa).  Rome wasn't
> built in a day and Canada's building data won't be entered into OSM in a
> day, either.  HOWEVER, as they are being entered now, some "manually," some
> (few) via OD licence, and some as simple improvements ("Hey, I'm going to
> tag this a café because I'm a local OSM user and I know it is one!"), these
> efforts MUST BE coordinated (or managed, I keep saying, though I'm not
> particularly enamored of the word as it seems non-OSM, yet on
> national-scope projects, something like "management" really is required,
> even if it is "loose but effective coordination").
>
> Building data being entered into OSM do not have to be part of BC2020i,
> what is now WikiProject BC2020:  if I simply tag a building polygon
> amenity=cafe, I don't become part of a coordinated effort.  However, to the
> extent they strive to be part of the coordinated effort to enter nationwide
> building data, following the guidelines in our wiki of what we mean by
> acceptable-quality data, with acceptable tags, they really, really should.
> Such coordination benefits everybody, and at minor "cost" (follow some
> nationwide guidelines, stay communicative with your status...).  Is that so
> difficult a point upon which to agree?
>
> Thank you for continuing good dialog,
> SteveA
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20180129/d02e478c/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-ca mailing list