[Talk-ca] FW: Building Import

Tue Mar 26 22:15:50 UTC 2019

Voir https://github.com/opendatalabrdc/Documentation/tree/master/topology où nous avons entreposé des fichiers geojson du projet de OpenDatalabRDC pour consultation.voir par exemplehttps://github.com/opendatalabrdc/Documentation/blob/master/topology/topology-irregular-forms-OC_Kampala_hotosm_4360_2018_04_07.geojson
La création d'un répertoire similaire facilliterait la consultations par tous des données.  Lors de la consultatin, on clique sur un polygone pour consulter les variables d'analyse.

Pierre 

    Le mardi 26 mars 2019 17 h 34 min 24 s HAE, Begin Daniel <jfd553 at hotmail.com> a écrit :  

 Screenshots? A good idea for having everyone seeing the results over complicated polygons (I will try keep objective in my selection ;-)

I am working to get it right on multiple adjacent polygons. I'll make the results available after I got them.

Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Jarek Piórkowski [mailto:jarek at piorkowski.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 17:19
To: Begin Daniel; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] FW: Building Import

Hi Daniel,

If you are interested, some more potentially complicated areas around
Golden Horseshoe for testing. Each is roughly one screen on z16. I
don't know some of these as much, you might want to post results as
data files or screenshots for others to also look at to increase
buy-in.

- Spadina Chinatown and Kensington Market in Toronto, small buildings
tight in against each other, many semi-detached or attached, and some
larger ex-industrial buildings: 43.6569,-79.3868,43.6477,-79.4086
- University of Waterloo, with smaller attached residence buildings
that might have somewhat complicated shapes, as well as large
interconnected school buildings: 43.4740,-80.5362,43.4648,-80.5580
- downtown Kitchener, using a variety of grid alignments and some
buildings that might not be square: 43.4562,-80.4782,43.4470,-80.5000
- downtown Hamilton also has streets that aren't at right angles:
43.2619,-79.8572,43.2527,-79.8790
- St. Catharines might also be not square: 43.1640,-79.2322,43.1547,-79.2540
- Unionville, older area of Markham: 43.8717,-79.2993,43.8625,-79.3211

You will notice a trend of downtowns with non-square grids. I'm sure
others will be happy to contribute more examples of areas with
geometries they'd consider tricky. Bigger buildings might be more
likely to not be square if they're built out to max out the available
lot. I imagine only-slightly-non-square grids will be most
challenging...

--Jarek

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 16:49, Begin Daniel <jfd553 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> As usual, missed the reply all …
>
>
>
> From: jfd553 at hotmail.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 16:26
> To: 'John Whelan'
> Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Building Import
>
>
>
> It is really kind to consider my background ;-)
>
> You are right regarding the "black box" approach; this is why a large approval from the community is required before I go further.
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> From: John Whelan [mailto:jwhelan0112 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 16:04
> To: Begin Daniel
> Cc: Jarek Piórkowski; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org; keith hartley; Alessandro (STATCAN)
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import
>
>
>
> I think my concerns are to do with the "black box" approach.  Knowing your background I trust your work but others might not.
>
> On a technical side I get the impression that cites with buildings that are close to each other are problematical.  I assume that small locations with a population of say under 125,000 this is an insignificant problem?
>
> The other issue is I'd like to either see buy in from Nate or at least some Toronto mappers to get an indication that something will happen at the end of the day as it is a fair chunk of Daniel's time to work out how do the preprocessing.
>
> I think some BC mappers expressed some doubts as well so perhaps they would like to think about if they are happy or would prefer BC to be outside of the import project and express their views.
>
> Out of interest if it does move ahead are we including the Microsoft data for areas where we do not have data from Stats Canada?  If so we will need to amend the project plan.
>
> My personal view is realistically I think having building information even if its a meter or two out is better than not having the building outlines.
>
> What would be nice is if we could have some indication from places such as Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec excluding Montreal, Ontario excluding Toronto and the other provinces and territories whether they are happy with importing the buildings either from Stats or Microsoft.
>
> I seem to recall Keith is in Manitoba, so any views other than it wasn't present in the first release from Stats?
>
> Note to Alessandro this is just background stuff.
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheerio John
>
> Begin Daniel wrote on 2019-03-26 3:29 PM:
>
> Jarek,
>
> The area you proposed in quite interesting and will force me to look further at buildings with sharing edges, a concern Pierre also had. I'll be back soon with your area processed.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Begin Daniel [mailto:jfd553 at hotmail.com]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 14:34
>
> To: Jarek Piórkowski; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import
>
>
>
> Jarek,
>
> Since it is a one-time process, I expect to be able to process the files if the community feels comfortable with it. In the meantime, people are welcome to send me the bounding box of an area they would like to examine.
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Jarek Piórkowski [mailto:jarek at piorkowski.ca]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 13:46
>
> To: Begin Daniel; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import
>
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 13:10, Begin Daniel <jfd553 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is actually no standard “code” available since I use FME (www.safe.com). It is a proprietary ETL application and all operations are done using “transformers” (https://www.safe.com/transformers/). I can provide you with the workbench I developed (a bunch of linked transformers) but you need a license to run it. This is why I tried to describe the operations I run on the data in the wiki.
>
>
>
> As you did, people may send me coordinates (bounding box) of an area they know well. I’ll process the area and send the results back in OSM format. Please, be reasonable on the amount of data to process ;-)
>
> Thanks Daniel. Let me know how it looks then!
>
>
>
> Coming from an open-source background, the process is unusual to me,
>
> and I have questions about scalability - will you be able to process
>
> and provide updated data files for all of Canada then? - but if others
>
> are comfortable with it then I won't object.
>
>
>
> Some general thoughts regarding tooling as raised upthread:
>
>
>
> I was initially excited to see building footprints data as they help
>
> two quite distinct purposes:
>
>
>
> 1. they provide a mostly-automatic source of geometries for the
>
> millions of single-family houses that wouldn't be mapped in the next
>
> decade otherwise
>
>
>
> 2. they might provide a corrected and fairly accurate source of
>
> geometries in heavily-built-up areas, where GPS signal is not that
>
> reliable and it can be really difficult to get sufficiently accurate
>
> geometries from imagery, whether because it's not sufficiently
>
> high-resolution, two sets of imagery with conflicting offsets (Bing
>
> and Esri are the two best sets in Toronto, and they're off by about
>
> 1-2 m on north-south axis from each other - that's not something I can
>
> check with a consumer-grade GPS so I'm left guessing as to which is
>
> true), or non-vertical imagery (I can count the floors on supposedly
>
> top-down imagery in some cases).
>
>
>
> >From what I saw, imports in the GTHA initially focused on the first
>
> case, and I think the Tasking Manager setup was mostly sufficient for
>
> those - where there is nothing currently on the map, or a few simple
>
> 2D geometries, a 4 sq km area can feasibly be done in under an hour.
>
>
>
> However, as raised by others, I would really want the working squares
>
> in Old Toronto for example to be no more than 500 m x 500 m, or no
>
> more than 1 km x 1 km in St. Catharines. I would _love_ to have the
>
> geometries to manually compare and adjust the 3D buildings already
>
> existing in the area, but it will be much slower.
>
>
>
> --Jarek
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Talk-ca mailing list
>
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Talk-ca mailing list
>
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sent from Postbox
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________
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/20190326/4c006f81/attachment-0001.html>