Re: [OSM-talk] Can Google use our buildings
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 j...@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What would be the measure of relatively out of date?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. dave...@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images are all, relatively, out of date.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=-121.56369lat=37.00553zoom=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@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can Google use our buildings
Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com writes: Why do you want to see outlines autogenerated from aerial imagery, you could just look at the aerial imagery? That's not true. For example, when converting to garmin format, buildings render with very few bits, and let you know developed vs undeveloped areas. Imagery is too big to carry around (and I don't think bing lets people download for offline use), and too detailed to look at while driving. This could be an urban vs rural thing. Cities are basically full of buildings, and any non-building area is notable and worthy of denoting on the map. In semi-rural or rural areas, there are large chunks of just forest (sometimes with roads), and it's there that I find knowing where buildings are to be very useful. pgpJwq0_13hrb.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can Google use our buildings
Not necessarily. Urban blind people probably want to know where there's likely to be a wall. On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com writes: Why do you want to see outlines autogenerated from aerial imagery, you could just look at the aerial imagery? That's not true. For example, when converting to garmin format, buildings render with very few bits, and let you know developed vs undeveloped areas. Imagery is too big to carry around (and I don't think bing lets people download for offline use), and too detailed to look at while driving. This could be an urban vs rural thing. Cities are basically full of buildings, and any non-building area is notable and worthy of denoting on the map. In semi-rural or rural areas, there are large chunks of just forest (sometimes with roads), and it's there that I find knowing where buildings are to be very useful. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can Google use our buildings
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=-121.56369lat=37.00553zoom=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 list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can Google use our buildings
On 2013-01-06, at 7:50 PM, Nathan Mixter nmix...@gmail.com wrote: 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. I know an import of multispectral imagery derived building outlines was proposed about a year ago and rejected. I imagine other automaticity generated outlines would have the same issues. The imports list should have a more complete discussion of the issues found. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can Google use our buildings
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=-121.56369lat=37.00553zoom=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 list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can Google use our buildings
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. dave...@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=-121.56369lat=37.00553zoom=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@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
