[Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Tue Mar 28 17:55:11 UTC 2017


On 03/28/2017 11:06 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote:
> California has more than triple the amount of data available than any
> other state. Importing it will be no small task but doing it in chunks
> by several people will make it manageable.

I know that singling you out borders on the impolite but I can't resist
on this occasion. I haven't analysed data in the US systematically but I
have had very many cases where I looked at an area in the US and thought
to myself "uh, someone has imported individual plot boundaries here", or
"uh, this funny landuse origami here seems to be totally out of touch
with imagery" and then when I looked at who was behind that, it turned
out to be another nmixter import.

Over the years, you have imported a lot of stuff into OSM that probably
would not stand up to scrutiny in an import review like we do them
today. The thought of you leading any kind of major import attempt in
the US fills me with dread.

Now maybe I'm doing you injustice and you are having second thoughts
about some of the things you did in the past. That would of course be
great. I do remember at least one discussion in which you agreed to
revert a particularly broken landuse import that a couple of your
countrymen complained about but I don't know how rare an exception that was.

If I had a choice, I would much prefer if you could apply your time to
revisiting the data you have imported over the years, and check whether
that data stands up to today's quality expectations, and whether it is
worth keeping at all.


Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

More information about the Talk-us mailing list