[Talk-ca] Building Import update

[john whelan]

If you take a look at 942 Bridle Path Crescent for example whilst it isn't
exactly square the deviations from 90 degrees to me are relatively minor.
I assume that this is the sort of thing you are talking about?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=942%20Bridle%20Path%20Crescent%20kingston#map=19/44.25311/-76.59308

Are we expecting too high a standard?

Cheerio John

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 21:54, Pierre Béland via Talk-ca <
talk-ca at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Nate je viens juste de publier les résultats pour Kingston. Un ratio de
> 66% de polygones avec formes irrégulières. A voir si la simplification
> éliminerait les noeuds qui ont pour effet de créer des formes irrégulières.
>
> Je n'ai pas encore regardé de près les résultats. Cependant, m on
> expérience en République démocratique du Congo depuis l'an dernier, Kisenso
> et récemment Butembo, a montré qu'a partir de ces diagostics, la validation
> / correction si nécessaire des polygones permettait de réduire fortement
> les ratios, et ce sous les 3% des bâtiments.
>
> Je pense aussi qu'il faut prendre le temps de corriger les données qui
> risque de ne pas être modifiées par la suite.
>
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> Le samedi 26 janvier 2019 21 h 06 min 39 s HNE, Nate Wessel <
> bike756 at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
> James,
>
> It does seem that someone will need to properly simplify the data since
> you don't seem willing to do the necessary work. I've already offered to
> help, but I can't do it today, or tomorrow for that matter. My suggestion,
> again, is that we slow down and take the time to do this right. Rushing
> ahead can only lead to hurt feelings, angry emails, and extra work for
> everyone. Given how much editing goes on in the areas I know, many of these
> imported buildings might not be touched again for another decade - can't we
> make them right the first time?
>
> I think Pierre is on the right track here with his thoughtful analysis of
> the buildings that have been imported so far - this is the kind of stuff
> that I'm talking about when I say we need some validation. Some questions
> that I'd like to see answered (Pierre, when you have some more time!): just
> how many buildings imported so far are not orthogonal, but seem like they
> should be? What percentage of buildings would benefit from simplification,
> and is the problem worse/better in some areas compared to others?
>
> I actually don't think the problem is technically difficult to solve - we
> just have to understand the nature and extent off the problem before we
> rush to solutions. That's the point of validation - understanding what the
> problems are.
>
> Best,
> Nate Wessel
> Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning
> NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190127/8fc58f27/attachment.html>