[Talk-ca] Importing buildings in Canada

Nate Wessel bike756 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 27 16:03:02 UTC 2019


John,
You are once again purposely mischaracterizing my position on this and I 
do not appreciate it one bit. Your import did not follow the import 
guidelines and was not approved by the broader community. It was not 
sent out to the mailing list, it was barely documented, it was not 
posted on the import page on the wiki... I could go on. I was not the 
only person who had a problem with it - I was just the first to say 
something. The buildings imported in Toronto were very low quality IMO 
and the changes were happening very, very quickly and without notice.

But we do not need to rehash old fights.

I would like to see buildings (re)imported in Toronto (the rest of 
Canada is not really my business), but I would like to see it done 
right. I can elaborate what I mean by that, but so can the archives of 
this mailing list. If people are interested in engaging in a serious 
discussion about moving forward with a building import for Toronto, I am 
happy to engage constructively with that.

Respectfully,

Nate Wessel, PhD
Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
NateWessel.com <http://www.natewessel.com>

On 2019-09-27 11:44 a.m., john whelan wrote:
> From memory we have imported Ottawa's buildings under the correct 
> license (Stat Can so the federal government's open data license) and 
> the quality was deemed acceptable by the local mappers.
>
> Then we opened up a second import plan to import buildings and a fair 
> number were imported.  This included an task manager set up with tiles 
> to assist the mapping.
>
> The data sources were different as each municipality created their own 
> source.
>
> My understanding is some mappers thought the data should be 
> preprocessed and two or three were going to come up with a plan to 
> preprocess the data.
>
> About that time an American mapper, Nate, who was living in Toronto 
> took exception to 1,000,000 buildings being imported in Western Canada 
> and requested the DWG to remove them without waiting for discussion on 
> talk-ca to address his concerns.
>
> We do have three sources of correctly licensed data, the Stat Can data 
> sets, the Microsoft data sets, and the NR Canada LiDAR data.
>
> I do know that a number of departments and agencies would like to use 
> buildings and although they can use the open data sources using OSM 
> would be more convenient.
>
> I'm not sure what if anything is happening at the moment.
>
> Are we expecting local groups to draw up their own import plan as 
> Ottawa did since we seem to be unable to get a consensus across Canada?
>
> My gut feeling is with three sources of data we'll see new mappers 
> importing in buildings without going through an import process.  Are 
> we content to let that happen?
>
> Have whoever it was who was going to come up with a preprocessing plan 
> done so?  Has it been accepted by the rest of us?
>
> I note that Pierre has noted there is now a validation process in JOSM 
> for correcting buildings that are not quite 90 degrees on the 
> corners.  Would an acceptable approach be to import then return to 
> check the angles on the corners and correct them?
>
> Does Nate still have unaddressed concerns about buildings being 
> imported in Western Canada?
>
> Can we get a consensus about what to do next?
>
> Thanks John
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190927/2c372688/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-ca mailing list