[Talk-ca] Building Import update

[Nate Wessel]

John,

IMO, this is a red herring and I think you must recognize that to at 
least some degree. Just like no one suggested we do 3700 import plans, 
no on has suggested that we not add buildings to OSM. The question is 
how, and if that "how" in part is an import, then what data, at what 
speed, by who, etc?

We're not debating between "import" and "nothing" here. There were tens 
of thousands of carefully hand-mapped buildings in Toronto before you 
and a couple others rode in and quietly changed everything in the course 
of a week.

I'd like to point out to you the interesting case of Kenton County Kentucky:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/361564

Go ahead and zoom in and take a good look at that data. Poke around the 
rest of Northern Kentucky too while you're at it. Notice how good not 
only the building data is, but landuses, named places, etc. The only 
substantial import this area has ever seen is the TIGER road import of 
about a decade ago. By the time we started our Hamilton County building 
import (just north of the river), there were more than 150,000 buildings 
added by hand in the region already.

I'm not saying this is the way Toronto/Canada needs to develop, but 
don't imply that it's impossible - it isn't.

Cheers,

Nate Wessel
Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning
NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com>

On 2/1/19 7:35 AM, john whelan wrote:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=arthur%20mark%20drive%20port%20hope%20ontario#map=17/43.96262/-78.27069
>
> https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.9631101,-78.2732195,17.25z
>
> https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH3
>
> Port Hope Ontario is relatively obscure yet both Bing and google have 
> buildings and neither company would spend the money dropping them in 
> unless they saw a demand.
>
> A small sample but I'm sure that others are quite capable of looking 
> locally for themselves.
>
>
> I'm a shades of grey person so to me there is no absolute need to have 
> buildings in OpenStreetMap and I think different end users have 
> different expectations.  I seem to recall osmand has a street only map 
> which takes up less room on the device.  It's perfectly adequate for 
> some users.
>
> I can make a case for both having them and not having any.  On the not 
> having any way up there would be the buildings added by inexperienced 
> mappers using iD often in HOT projects.  There are duplicates, strange 
> shapes that bare no relation to any imagery, and city blocks marked as 
> a single building.  On the having them side would be where can I get a 
> coffee and wifi?
>
> There are many users of the map who would like to see buildings or 
> more importantly have building information available in an electronic 
> form.
>
> For Ottawa I think I can safely say the local mappers are happy with 
> the imported buildings.  In OpenStreetMap there will always be a range 
> of points of view.
>
> As you say it is for the local mappers to decide what they would like 
> to do.  In this case is it difficult to define the local mappers.
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190201/03c22d75/attachment.html>