[Talk-ca] Building Import

[Roman Auriti]

Thanks for sharing those, Nate. I like using PostGIS and I would be happy
to help the community clean geometries. Is there anyone in Calgary on the
mailing list?

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:20 AM john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The trade off is if it can be used elsewhere then there is a benefit for
> using open source software however if it's only going to be used once here
> and we have someone who knows the proprietary software very well the data
> that ends up in OSM doesn't really care how it was produced.
>
> This is more a religious argument.
>
> Lots of people run OSM applications on Windows and Android both if which
> are proprietary ran than on an open source version of Unix.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 10:04 AM Roman Auriti, <roman.auriti at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Why is it that FME seems to be a tool that's OK to use for OSM when
>> someone replied that they could use PostGIS and was shut down by someone
>> else replying  'I'm not installing postgesql for you to accept
>> simplification'? Does anyone else find it a little ironic that the
>> community would move forward with proprietary software over open software?
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:46 AM Begin Daniel <jfd553 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Buildings where there is no available municipal data
>>>
>>> Sent from Galaxy S7
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* John Whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2019 9:32:32 AM
>>> *To:* Begin Daniel
>>> *Cc:* Talk-ca; keith hartley
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import
>>>
>>> Are you talking about the older CANVEC data or the data that Stats has
>>> released which is really municipal data?
>>>
>>> Thanks John
>>>
>>> Begin Daniel wrote on 2019-03-28 8:31 AM:
>>>
>>> Someone has compared Bing and Canvec data in rural areas?
>>>
>>> Sent from Galaxy S7
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* OSM Volunteer stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>
>>> <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:52:02 PM
>>> *To:* Talk-ca
>>> *Cc:* keith hartley
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import
>>>
>>> Ah, good dialog ensues.  Municipality by municipality, in conjunction
>>> with BOTH the StatsCan and Bing data, the right things are getting noticed,
>>> the right things are getting human-realized at what the next steps are to
>>> do.  It gets better.
>>>
>>> Yay.  Stitch it together.  One municipality at a time.  One province at
>>> a time.  Pretty soon, after a few revisions of data and back-and-forths
>>> between municipalities and province-wide data checking, you've got
>>> something.  There, you go.
>>>
>>> SteveA
>>>
>>> > On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:23 PM, keith hartley <keith.a.hartley at gmail.com>
>>> <keith.a.hartley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The patchwork of municipalities is at least useful, before we didn't
>>> have a framework for adding this data, but at least we do now thanks to the
>>> umbrella license @ Stats Canada. We're a big country with very few, but
>>> very skilled OSM mappers (IE gecho111 mapped all of regina's building
>>> footprints! ).
>>> >
>>> > I like the concept of the Bing data, but they may have to do another
>>> few tries, or maybe retain their Neural network. - Is there anywhere where
>>> the Bing data looks nice? I found burbs in Winnipeg not bad, but there's
>>> some really weird elements when the source data is too simple (buildings in
>>> the middle of fields) or too complex (urban cores)
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 6:29 AM John Whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>
>>> <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > The Stats Canada data comes from the municipalities.  Unfortunately
>>> there are over 3,000 in Canada so yes ideally each would be treated
>>> separately in reality each municipality doesn't have a group of skilled OSM
>>> mappers who are capable of setting up an import plan and doing the work
>>> although there is nothing to stop them doing so.
>>> >
>>> > Cheerio John
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-ca mailing listTalk-ca at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from Postbox
>>> <https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20190328/a99f4e35/attachment-0001.html>