[Talk-ca] Building Import

[Iain]

Hello Roman. 

I am a Calgary area mapper. Let me know if you need my involvement in this. More than happy to help

Iain

> On Mar 28, 2019, at 08:53, Roman Auriti <roman.auriti at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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>
>>>>> 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> 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> 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 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/20190329/f33ccf13/attachment.html>