[Talk-us] [Imports] Bing Building Import

Thu Aug 30 15:37:54 UTC 2018

Hi all-

Have there been any ideas about how we want to handle the import process?

My thoughts are that this could be treated as a unified project for
"simple" imports that will not be conflating the footprints with other data
(e.g. address points).  My thought is we could adopt a streamlined process
like this to avoid filling up the imports lists when the experience of the
mapper needs to be reviewed rather than the actual import process itself:

   1. Write a project-level wiki page with standard instructions and tips
   with community feedback
   2. Have a table on the page (and maybe the Import Catalog) for local
   groups or users that would like to "claim" the import in a certain area and
   track import/validation progress.
   3. Get a few volunteers from the community who can serve as "project
   managers" to offer guidance and validation
   4. When a new user starts the import process, they complete a small test
   area and then message a project manager to get thumbs up and feedback
   before continuing on with the import
   5. We all use a special #bingbuildings changeset hashtag so that we can
   monitor and track progress
   6. Optionally, set up a project in the OSM-US tasking manager when the
   import is complete for validation purposes by the community at-large.

If someone is running an import that conflates the footprints with other
datasets (e.g. address points), that would go through the normal community
review process since we'll have a separate license and process to review.

Thanks,

Andrew

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 12:32 PM Greg Morgan <dr.kludge.gm at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> Greg,
>>
>> I will comment on a few of the new things you have written but like to
>> emphasize this is still not an import review because a lot of
>> information required for that is missing.  You could however read up
>> old discussions on previous building imports here to get an idea on the
>
> requirements and suggestions made for those.
>>
>
> Got it.  It is not a review but a helpful number of ideas.  Thank you for
> your time.
>
>
>> > [...]  In my early opinion, the foot prints are no
>> > better nor no worse than a craft mapper,s drawing
>>
>
>
>
>> This is always a pretty meaningless comparison because it is apples and
>> peaches.  When i talk about "quality aspects" i mean quantifiable
>> measures of quality.
>>
>> > [...]  As your
>> > other post provided an idea of starting with Montana, that will not
>> > be useful in my case.
>>
>> I suggested rural Montana might be a good place to start if you
>> intend "to poke the data for quality issues".  Since that is not what
>> you want to do my suggestion is pretty useless for you obviously.
>>
>> > > Microsoft's process documentation contains a number of hints that
>> > > indicate things can go wrong in the process in ways that are likely
>> > > to produce significant errors of kinds that are very unlikely to
>> > > happen in manual mapping.  Without having reliable data on how
>> > > often these things do happen (and how this varies between different
>> > > geographic settings) you would essentially be doing a blind import.
>> >
>>
>
> Christoph, as an analogy you have read that you can get sun burnt if you
> go outside.  Now you are afraid to go outside because you read about the
> resulting skin cancer. Microsoft is just saying that the data us good but
> use at your own risk.  They also point out that we should go through the
> import process.  Keeping up with the analogy, I have been sun burnt in
> Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, California, and Arizona for sure.  There
> are other states where I have been sun burnt but they are too numerous to
> list.  My point is that I understand what is rural America in all the
> states listed.  The sample I have provided so far is in rural Arizona.  It
> is not in metro Phoenix.  I can parse Montana but that would not add any
> any more detail to this discussion.  The test.osm file here is rural
> America but in Arizona by the border with Mexico.  People who live in this
> area are either retires or work for the border patrol.
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1I7BPMKLgABk8ikUdEPFpl6zKgh9E-sDN
>
>
>
>> > Depending on the craft mapper, hand drawn buildings can have the same
>> > problems. [...]
>>
>> As i have been very clear about this is not the case:
>>
>> > > Microsoft's process documentation contains a number of hints that
>> > > indicate things can go wrong in the process in ways that are likely
>> > > to produce significant errors of kinds that are very unlikely to
>> > > happen in manual mapping.
>>
>> The only thing that could convince me to change this assessment would
>> be - as already mentioned - a thorough analysis of the quality that
>> holds up to scientific scrutiny.  And it is frankly much more likely
>> that such analysis would confirm my impression.  If it does not that
>> would mean Microsoft has made progress in the field that absolutely
>> dwarfs everyone else working in the area and if that was the case we
>> would see it on the stock market. ;-)
>>
>> Don't make the mistake of assuming this to be a building data set like
>> various ones produced by local authorities or mapping institutions some
>> of which have been considered for import or have been imported in the
>> past.  It is not.  Therefore again my statement: IMO this means that a
>> proper import review would only be possible based on a thorough
>> analysis of the quality of Microsoft's product that holds up to
>> scientific scrutiny.
>>
>
> Continuing on with the sun burnt  analogy, if I wear a high blocking sun
> screen I will not get burnt as much.  I could careless about the mapper's
> assessment from Alaska.  His imagery is leaf on compared to my imagery
> which is leaf off.  Because I live in a desert, I will have fewer issues
> than the Alaskan mapper's data set.  There are no trees hanging over the
> buildings in question.  Here's what I have done so far to protect myself
> from claims on both sides i.e. the data is good and the data is bad.
>
> * So I see that there will need to be some checking done as part of the
> import process. Here are some early observations of the CNTK process that
> MS used with 32 GPUs.
>
> * The we have many solar panels in Arizona because of a state mandate.
> Many of these are used as covered parking.  The tag of yes would have to
> change to roof.  That can happen during the import or as a second QA pass.
>
> * The Q in JOSM will be required for some of the black topped roofs or
> solar panels.
>
> * It is curios that some of the black roof or darker colored roofs are
> missed.  When I craft map, sometimes I get interrupted, sometimes I get
> bored and I never get back to the missing buildings.   Oh well!  Either
> another mapper comes along and picks up the missing work or sits for
> awhile.  That is what I mean by the data is no better nor no worse than a
> normal volunteer's work flow.
>
> *  All the round buildings are square.  That may be the result of CNTK
> making sure that buildings are square. The work around is to add a few more
> nodes and hit the O key in Josm
>
> * I noticed one or two buildings where they included a concrete slab as
> part of the building.  The X tool in JOSM will be used to scale back that
> part of the building.  Again, I've had to clean up these kinds of issues
> with other craft mappers including myself.  Buildings that I mapped from
> the prior version of Bing or Yahoo, are clearer with the last Bing imagery
> release in my area.
>
> * The imagery in this area of the test.osm file is satellite based. It is
> not of the same high quality .5 meter and below I get to use in the metro
> Phoenix area.  Moreover, the metro Phoenix are is flown imagery so most of
> it is very high nadir.  MS states that they have a number of sources of
> imagery providers.  The buildings still look respectable.
>
> * There was one school that I was puzzled why it came out the way it did.
> This is a non issue because there is an existing building.  The Bing
> building will be deleted.
>
> I have to dash.  Perhaps I can post some screen shots of the test.osm
> file.  What I have done so far is to have two layers in Josm to compare the
> data with the existing OSM data.  The test file is here
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I7BPMKLgABk8ikUdEPFpl6zKgh9E-sDN/view .
> The whole Google drive folder is here
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FhQd8fSIbx9OyG6vFAaKkBfYn10Rw0Da .  The
> information may be useful to other mappers considering the Bing
> footprints.  Arizona is one of the larger data files.  I can parse other
> states if that will be helpful to other US Mappers.  And yes I was going to
> looke at both Wyoming and Montana.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20180830/d250a1d6/attachment-0001.html>