[Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Fri Jul 24 10:12:44 UTC 2020
Jul 24, 2020, 11:38 by nick at foresters.org:
> My thanks to Mateusz and Dave for their comments, which I would like to try to summarise as I see it:
> the purpose of OSM mapping in the UK of rural buildings is primarily to provide a general location of properties i.e. accuracy and precision are unnecessary.
I would say that extreme precision/accuracy is not necessary.
Some minimal accuracy is necessary,
"I will map square area and tag it as building no matter building shape"
is not OK.
Improving roughly mapped geometry by a better one is always welcomed.
> 'armchair' mapping therefore meets the needs, predominantly using aerial photos or other tools/data
> If so, I guess I was missing the point as I kind of thought that in the future there might be the potential for collaboration with Ordnance Survey e.g. filling in the gaps with high quality surveys, sharing 'other' data (based on local knowledge) that is not on OS maps etc.
It potentially would be nice, though official datasets (based on experience from Poland) may have
other quality issue like say dividing building in too many areas. My favorite case has every step
in an outdoor staircase mapped as a separate area, that was blindly imported.
Or including only parts of buildings that are officially existing, without illegally constructed parts.
> I also thought that there might be scope for collaboration with construction developers - after all they do detailed surveys of their building sites which could be added to OSM. For some developers that would mean they could have free plans (site/location etc.) for their planning applications. The data in turn could be of value to the Local Authorities e.g. creating UPRN and BLPU data - with a collaborative approach OSM 'volunteers' could also be checking data quality.
> Hmm.. the potential for real collaboration between OSM 'volunteers', OS and other agencies strikes me as a possible win-win?..
Yes, though topic is quite tricky due to legal issues and due to different priorities/approaches.
> but I suppose that is me going 'a step too far'
I would not say that is going too far.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB