[OSM-talk] Why we square buildings (WAS: iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared)
jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Sat May 11 19:43:37 UTC 2019
>Are buildings with rectangular corners buildings mappers from developed
countries want to see on a map because they look more professional/tidy? ;-)
I think the original problem was some buildings mapped in Nepal were of
very poor quality and one way to pick them out quickly was to look for none
My personal view is if you square a building you are approximating and that
is never good on the quality side.
On Sat, May 11, 2019, 3:38 PM Michael Reichert, <osm-ml at michreichert.de>
> Am 11/05/2019 um 21.09 schrieb Simon Poole:
> > Just a general remark on the technical issue that sparked of this
> > discussion: squaring buildings is not primarily about improving data
> > quality. Non-square buildings are simply visually annoying when
> > rendered, so much that I support squaring them "as a rule" too when it
> > can reasonably be assumed that there are 90° angles in the actual
> > building outline. But I'm not kidding myself that it improves "quality".
> > If we wanted to define quality of building outlines in OSM we would
> > probably be talking about deviations from the buildings footprint area,
> > average deviations from the outline and so on, any of these could be
> > very small even without squaring. Actually, squaring might impact them
> > negatively, particularly when the outline is rough, but as said: square
> > buildings are just so much easier on the eyes :-).
> Are buildings with rectangular corners buildings mappers from developed
> countries want to see on a map because they look more professional/tidy?
> Best regards
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk