[OSM-talk] Microsoft Buildings vs. OpenStreetMap visualization

[Pierre Béland]

While you observe quality problems with imports,  you can contribute to better document these problems  with samples of buildings ( list of osm_id  and brief description of observations ).
 
Pierre 
 

    Le vendredi 2 août 2019 23 h 34 min 17 s UTC−4, AntiCompositeNumber <anticompositenumber at gmail.com> a écrit :  
 
 In my area, it also appears that the detection rate is fairly good. In
my brief look through I found one building where there is no building
and a few buildings that the AI did not find. The rotation issue was
fairly common as well as a general offset from the imagery (This may
be on the Mapbox side, I don't know). The footprints get the general
shape of the building mostly there, but struggle with smaller
sections. Overall, the tool seems to be good at saying "There is a
building here and it's about this big" but is less successful at
identifying the details of the buildings.

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:17 PM Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/2/2019 7:24 AM, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote:
> > Here's a demo by azavea showing how 125 Million AI-mapped buildings
> > relate to 33 Million buildings currently in OpenStreetMap in the same
> > region.
> >
> > https://demos.azavea.com/building-footprint-comparison/#4.4/38.67/-93.93
>
> Thanks, this is interesting.
>
> Browsing the areas I'm most familiar with in NYC (where we had a
> building footprint import from city data in 2013), I find that the
> buildings that are detected by Microsoft but missing from OSM are mostly
> either already demolished buildings (currently mapped as
> landuse=construction), small outbuildings, or simply nonexistent. In the
> cemetery, Microsoft has picked out a few of the more impressive tombs
> and mausoleums. And in one case Azavea seems to have failed to notice a
> building that's been mapped in OSM for years (since the import.)
>
> Browsing more rural areas in upstate NY, I see thousands of unmapped
> buildings, mostly houses, that Microsoft successfully detected -- in
> some cases despite tree cover. The sizes are pretty good and the
> footprints are okayish. Oddly some of them seem slightly rotated, maybe
> a trick of the shadows.
>
> J
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190803/8e25026a/attachment.html>