[Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

[John Whelan]

At the end of the day one would hope we are a community.  We are a large 
group with divergent opinions and to be honest there is a great deal of 
interest in non-mappers in this sort of data.

For example building data is being used in Tanzania to work out the 
optimal areas for group solar panels.  It can be used for many other 
things which may not be immediately apparent to a traditional paper 
based mapper.

With both the Stats Can released data and the Microsoft released data 
floating around some data is going to creep in anyway.

At the moment we have Tim taking responsibility for Montreal.

There seems to be a number of divergent views in Toronto so I think they 
should sit down and see if they can come to some sort of agreement.

We have Pierre and Nate who would appear to have different standards of 
what is acceptable to other mappers.  We have at least half a dozen 
mappers who support the import, shown by their imports. I can probably 
find a few more mappers who support the import if it comes to a simple vote.

I would suggest we try to best manage the process.  If that means the 
imported data is verified by another mapper I think that can be arranged.

Cheerio John

Yaro Shkvorets wrote on 2019-03-15 11:22 AM:
> As an experienced local Ontario and Quebec mapper I don't see any 
> major problems with Stats Can building quality. It's detailed and 
> recent, it's the best dataset we could ever possibly get and it's far 
> superior to Microsoft quality. Having many buildings with "almost 
> square angles" in this dataset is not an issue as vast majority of 
> such deviations cannot be seen with a naked eye. Unfortunately any 
> orthogonalization algorithms will do more harm than good in such 
> cases. Mapping for the Validator, just like mapping for the Renderer 
> is a wrong way to map.
> Issues were raised, issues were addressed in the import plan. If there 
> are any problems with some mappers violating any specific import plan 
> rules such issues need to be pointed out so they can adjust their 
> workflow.
> My 2 cents.
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:55 AM Nate Wessel <bike756 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:bike756 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I just reported this to the data working group, in case you
>     haven't already. Hopefully they will step in!
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Nate Wessel
>     Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban
>     Planning
>     NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com>
>
>     On 3/15/19 10:30 AM, Pierre Béland wrote:
>>     Réponse immédiate avec refus de discussion de la part de
>>     DannyMcD_imports. Celui-ci indique qu'il prévoit continuer l'import.
>>     voir https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67686901
>>
>>     There was a discussion, issues were raised, the problems (to the
>>     extent that they existed at all) have been addressed. I plan to
>>     continue importing, unless a *specific* valid issue is raised.
>>     Please do not contact me again unless you have such an issue.
>>
>>
>>     La prochaine étape est je pense de contacter le Data Working Group.
>>
>>
>>     Pierre
>>
>>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-ca mailing list
>     Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
> -- 
> Best Regards,
>           Yaro Shkvorets
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

-- 
Sent from Postbox 
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20190315/0e10ba18/attachment.html>