[OSM-talk] Can Google use our buildings

[Gregory]

Why do you want to see outlines autogenerated from aerial imagery, you
could just look at the aerial imagery?

Going out and getting the address/use details and then adding that to a
building outline, now that's helpful added data that you can't get from
automation.

On 7 January 2013 03:14, Jeff Meyer <jeff at gwhat.org> wrote:

> Dave -
>
> What is the collection date of the imagery used? I couldn't find reference
> to it.
>
> What would be the measure of "relatively" out of date? Outside of newly
> developed areas, even imagery that is 5 years old could reasonably be
> expected to be ~95% accurate over most of the country. (Based on building
> completion estimates). So, isn't much of what's actually on the ground
> actually depicted in imagery that's only a few years old?
>
> Is there measured proof that filled maps are never QA'd? If so, why does
> Google offer tools to do just that? If there is no proof, what is the basis
> of your hypothesis?
>
> What would stop OSMers from QAing this type of data collection prior to
> inclusion in OSM?
>
> Why is accuracy the primary measure of concern here? As opposed to, say:
> completeness or consistency?
>
> Would it be that big of a problem if someone mapped somewhere other than
> where these building images are, as long as they were mapping?
>
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>
>>  I understand what & why you're saying this, Nathan, but remember these
>> images are all, relatively, out of date. I would rather that gaps were left
>> to be filled with what's is actually on the ground rather than what was
>> there a few years ago.
>>
>> I take pride that my city has newest buildings & roads mapped in OSM
>> before *any* other mapping service. (I'm still getting around to adding the
>> old, been there for centuries, houses)
>>
>> Having all areas filled with polygons of buildings doesn't actually
>> encourage users to refill it with up to date data. More often than not,
>> they think because *some* data is mapped it must be correct & go & map
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> Personally I'd rather have (slightly) less, but more accurate data than
>> blanket inaccurate data. When I first started ('09) I thought the opposite.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/01/2013 00:50, Nathan Mixter wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure if this link has been posted before, but for those wondering
>> how Google got their new buildings, there is a link at PC Magazine
>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411232,00.asp. Apparently they
>> recently uploaded 25M buildings done through an automated image recognition
>> software.
>>
>> I've manually added most of the buildings in the city of Gilroy (
>> http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?lon=-121.56369&lat=37.00553&zoom=17) so I
>> was curious to find out where they got their data from. I thought maybe the
>> city or county had a secret source that I hadn't found. And I checked
>> everywhere I could to find buildings that could have been imported.
>>
>> I was wondering if OSM could do the same thing. Could we buy as a group a
>> program like Feature Analyst, eCognition or Imagine Objective and add
>> buildings that way? We could combine the buildings with any existing
>> address points available. I checked into it earlier this year and one
>> program was about $2,000. But the money could be quickly raised. I know I
>> would be willing to donate.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing listtalk at openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Meyer
> Global World History Atlas
> www.gwhat.org
> jeff at gwhat.org
> 206-676-2347
> www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>


-- 
Gregory
osm at livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130109/b3e878cd/attachment.html>