Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kevin Kenny  
> wrote:
> As long as the Wiki page is merely identifying this as a potential project 
> that someone might sign up for someday, thatś fine. As it
> stands, it is incoherent as a project proposal.
> 
> Kevin,
> The wiki page was never intended to be a import proposal. It is only access 
> to the data, much like other data that can be found on 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States/Data.

Clifford and Nathan:  Nor did I "misunderstand" or "jump to the conclusion" 
that "the import had already occurred."  Nothing in my post even implied that.

> My hope is that users find the data interesting and use it to build and grow 
> their communities. Not only is the data useful in OSM, it can be used to help 
> other community members learn the policies, tools and techniques to import 
> data properly into OSM, in a way that improves the map. There are even some 
> smaller towns that could be import by a single individual. Certainly not 
> California!

As somebody who has CAREFULLY done imports (both before and after our 
guidelines were published), the most important consideration that I have is 
that the data enter OSM with the utmost, highest possible quality.  This means 
vetting them before, making sure they go in correctly (during) and checking 
after that they entered as intended, among very many other quality-oriented 
processes.

> The import guidelines are pretty easy to follow and should be followed. There 
> are a great number of tools that can be used to extract smaller chunks of 
> data such as QGIS and PostGIS as well as python scripts from other imports, 
> like the LA address and building import. The US Tasking Manager is a great 
> tool to use to 1) work small chunks at a time by people with training in how 
> to use JOSM and OSM and 2) a built in validation layer for more experienced 
> mappers to review the work.

Thanks, Clifford, I most certainly agree.  Tools help, yet tools are not all 
there is.  Tools can sometimes be leaned upon too much as a crutch, and data 
imports are not like pulling the trigger on a machine gun, whether to vet, 
upload, or data-check.  Having a practiced eye towards what high quality 
geographic data actually look like (both before and after upload to OSM) is 
absolutely essential to anybody acting in a leadership capacity during an 
import.

Spirited discussion!

SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints Date: March 28, 2017 at 2:06:33 AM PDT

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> This is where I have violently disagreed with Denis and his team in the
> past and still do; in my eyes, the *hard* work starts once the data has
> been prepared and converted and set up, because *then* I want people
> familiar with the area to load the data, compare it with what's there,
> NOT blindly delete what's there, cross-check with aerial imagery and so on.
>

Violently? Really? Actually all parts are equal important. Do a poor job
creating data to be imported will only result in poor data imported into
OSM. Equally important as you point out is the physical import which should
always be more than copy paste.

>
> In my eyes, all the data preparation is peanuts, and the real value is
> added to the import at the upload stage. This is where it is decided
> whether this import will be successful or rubbish. A sad example for a
> rubbish import is almost all of CanVec, which tends to be uploaded by
> people who think that the "hard work" is already done by those who
> prepared the data, and that all that is left for them is hitting the
> upload button in JOSM.
>

Why bring up CanVec?

>
> While a task manager can help, it tends to invite contributions by
> people who are not at all local to the area just to "colour it green".
> This is undesirable in my opinion.
>

I have to disagree with you. Using the Tasking Manager with newer mappers
is a good thing. That's how we build more experience mappers for the
future. If the preparation for the import is done well, newer mappers
should be able to learn how to do a quality import. That newer mapper
learns new tools and gains confidence to be valued contributor. The TM
validation layer then allows us to give feedback to not only the new
mapper, but also back to the originator.

Clifford



-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Fwd: [Wiki-research-l] Research Scientist position at WMF

[Pine W]

Forwarding in case there are statisticians or scientists in OSM that would
be interested in this job posting.

Pine


-- Forwarded message --
Hi all,

The Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation has just opened a full-time
research scientist position
.
In the past years, the team has worked on a variety of projects, including:
building ML-based scoring systems for Wikipedia and Wikidata

, recommendations systems for article creation
,
models
to detect harassment and personal attacks
,
and more. we are looking to add one more full-time role to our team to
expand our research capacity and strengthen our collaborations with
academia and industry.

If this is the kind of job you're interested in, please consider applying.
If you know people in your network who may be a good fit, please encourage
them to apply.

Best,
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Senior Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> As long as the Wiki page is merely identifying this as a potential
> project that someone might sign up for someday, thatś fine. As it
> stands, it is incoherent as a project proposal.
>

Kevin,
The wiki page was never intended to be a import proposal. It is only access
to the data, much like other data that can be found on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States/Data.

My hope is that users find the data interesting and use it to build and
grow their communities. Not only is the data useful in OSM, it can be used
to help other community members learn the policies, tools and techniques to
import data properly into OSM, in a way that improves the map. There are
even some smaller towns that could be import by a single individual.
Certainly not California!

The import guidelines are pretty easy to follow and should be followed.
There are a great number of tools that can be used to extract smaller
chunks of data such as QGIS and PostGIS as well as python scripts from
other imports, like the LA address and building import. The US Tasking
Manager is a great tool to use to 1) work small chunks at a time by people
with training in how to use JOSM and OSM and 2) a built in validation layer
for more experienced mappers to review the work.

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Nathan Mixter  wrote:
> Denis was right on with his response, and those are the type or responses
> that we need if ... and I do say if ... this project is to move forward.
> There are several hurdles in using this data, one being the size and scope.
> That is why the wiki page was created was to hash out the best way to
> proceed from people who have successfully done large scale imports. The data
> can't be reviewed effectively as one big file. The project is still young,
> and before we can even post on the imports list we need to have a procedure
> in place.
>
> Let's continue to pool resources and add ideas and suggestions to the wiki
> page as we look into the possibility of importing this data. Looking forward
> to hearing what others have to say and the ideas we can come up with
> together.

You correctly observe that the first job is to get the data split into
manageable pieces so that people can review the data quality and the
extent to which it's duplicative of what's already there. A bad import
is worse than no import, and an import that overwrites the hard work
of local mappers is many times as bad - it loses good data, brings in
bad data, and risks losing good mappers, which dries up future good
data.

I've done at most 'medium-scale' imports (a few hundred or a few
thousand multipolygons, representing boundaries of things like parks
and forests). Even with those, I found that raw shapefiles and
conversion to .OSM format was totally inadequate. The approach I took
was to pour the shapefiles into PostGIS using ogr2ogr, and then
preprocess the data there (making topology consistent, simplifying
ways, . I was then able to break things into manageable pieces,
produce individual .OSM files, and start the hard work of
conflation. For the "New York State DEC Lands", the import turned into
nearly 1500 separate changesets, and a few of those were pretty
unmanageable (Saranac Lakes Wild Forest took hours to conflate, with
all the shoreline.)

I would think that someone who is not fluent enough with some
geospatial database (PostGIS, SpatiaLite, Oracle Spatial, ArcGIS's
homegrown database, whatever...) is probably a poor choice of
individual to lead a major import.  If tasks are to be effectively
subdivided, someone needs to work out how the data are partitioned,
both from the spatial perspective (political boundaries?  census
enumeration districts? Groups of city blocks?) and the technological
perspective. (How is the split to be done? How are things patched
together at the margins? How are preëxisting data identified as
candidates for conflation? How is inconsistent topology to
be addressed?) Someone who cannot work with this sort
of file merely because of its size is likely not to have the
background to do these other tasks competently.

These tasks must be done by the project leader or a trusted delegate.
They cannot simply be farmed out to the community - or rather, farming
them out will succeed only if someone in the community steps forward
to do them, becoming de facto the project leader.

As long as the Wiki page is merely identifying this as a potential
project that someone might sign up for someday, thatś fine. As it
stands, it is incoherent as a project proposal.

(And for what it's worth, I most assuredly am not a suitable candidate.
I lack experience with coordinating or performing a large-scale import.
While I like to flatter myself that the imports I've done were done
with at least minimal competence, I'm surely not qualified to jump
to one this huge.)

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints Date: March 28, 2017 at 2:06:33 AM PDT

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 03/28/2017 05:48 PM, Denis Carriere wrote:
> Instead of having tons of different people trying to attempt loading all
> of these 8 Million buildings, 

[...]

> After all the "hard work" is done.. you can simply add those
> small chunks of data with JOSM using any Tasking Manager 

This is where I have violently disagreed with Denis and his team in the
past and still do; in my eyes, the *hard* work starts once the data has
been prepared and converted and set up, because *then* I want people
familiar with the area to load the data, compare it with what's there,
NOT blindly delete what's there, cross-check with aerial imagery and so on.

In my eyes, all the data preparation is peanuts, and the real value is
added to the import at the upload stage. This is where it is decided
whether this import will be successful or rubbish. A sad example for a
rubbish import is almost all of CanVec, which tends to be uploaded by
people who think that the "hard work" is already done by those who
prepared the data, and that all that is left for them is hitting the
upload button in JOSM.

While a task manager can help, it tends to invite contributions by
people who are not at all local to the area just to "colour it green".
This is undesirable in my opinion.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

[Frederik Ramm]

Nathan,

On 03/28/2017 11:06 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote:
> California has more than triple the amount of data available than any
> other state. Importing it will be no small task but doing it in chunks
> by several people will make it manageable.

I know that singling you out borders on the impolite but I can't resist
on this occasion. I haven't analysed data in the US systematically but I
have had very many cases where I looked at an area in the US and thought
to myself "uh, someone has imported individual plot boundaries here", or
"uh, this funny landuse origami here seems to be totally out of touch
with imagery" and then when I looked at who was behind that, it turned
out to be another nmixter import.

Over the years, you have imported a lot of stuff into OSM that probably
would not stand up to scrutiny in an import review like we do them
today. The thought of you leading any kind of major import attempt in
the US fills me with dread.

Now maybe I'm doing you injustice and you are having second thoughts
about some of the things you did in the past. That would of course be
great. I do remember at least one discussion in which you agreed to
revert a particularly broken landuse import that a couple of your
countrymen complained about but I don't know how rare an exception that was.

If I had a choice, I would much prefer if you could apply your time to
revisiting the data you have imported over the years, and check whether
that data stands up to today's quality expectations, and whether it is
worth keeping at all.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Building Footprints in CA

[Brian M Hamlin]

Hi All -
 
  I have been working with 2D building footprints from LA and other counties 
here in Berkeley on a research project,
using a PostGIS/GDAL stack and a libosimum tool, among others.. 
The project is broadly named  "California OpenData ECN" .. I am committed to an 
open data process. Not much more to say at this moment,
but I am reading this and want to contribute in some way, when thats possible. 
 
  cheers
--
Brian M Hamlin
OSGeo California Chapter
blog.light42.com

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

[Nathan Mixter]

Steve, I'm not sure how or why you are jumping to the conclusion that
because a wiki page was created that somehow means the import has already
occurred. Your impulsive reaction and rants are unwarranted and
unappreciated. No one has said anything about importing other than raising
the possibility.

The page was created by another user who was listing the data sets
available. I simply added another section on the page to break apart the
California areas into cities so they can be reviewed further. The page
clearly states that the import procedures need to be followed and I don't
have any plans to import the data now and I don't think anyone else does
either.

Denis was right on with his response, and those are the type or responses
that we need if ... and I do say if ... this project is to move forward.
There are several hurdles in using this data, one being the size and scope.
That is why the wiki page was created was to hash out the best way to
proceed from people who have successfully done large scale imports. The
data can't be reviewed effectively as one big file. The project is still
young, and before we can even post on the imports list we need to have a
procedure in place.

Let's continue to pool resources and add ideas and suggestions to the wiki
page as we look into the possibility of importing this data. Looking
forward to hearing what others have to say and the ideas we can come up
with together.

Nathan

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:23 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:

> I couldn't agree more, Denis.  The only thing that this (poorly
> named/indexed in OSM's wiki) "Available Building Footprints" page mentions
> about importing is "Any import of these building footprints must strictly
> follow the import guidelines."  Well, then, please do so!  I'm not saying
> that this built-in-the-last-week wiki isn't informative, for what it is, it
> is.  However, it is not an import project (yet), and while Nathan implies
> these data (data are plural) SHOULD be imported, he has not taken the time
> nor effort to correctly turn these into a real import project (posting to
> the imports list, following our "five steps...").
>
> Nathan just emailed me to say that he couldn't open the Bay Area shapefile
> either, saying he split it apart with QGIS.  He continues "Even though I
> split the file into different areas that file still seems to be the same
> size as the original. It's almost like the other data is still there even
> though it shows only the Bay Area shapes. Maybe some one else has a better
> way to split up the file. The Bay Area data all runs together so it is hard
> to see where natural splits occur. Maybe you (stevea) or some one else will
> have better luck trying to split it."  This does not bode well for someone
> who wants to lead or contribute to an import.  (Nathan, Nathan, Nathan...).
>
> Nathan and I have become friends, we met eight years ago in OSM, go on
> many hikes and camping trips together, he comes to my house parties and we
> further collaborate via email.  I have worked with Nathan on numerous
> import tasks, noted in our Santa Cruz County wiki page, including the major
> (now in version 3) import of Santa Cruz County landuse areas and the
> Monterey County California Farmland import.  The first one was nearly a
> disaster:  it took me four years to manually untangle Nathan's mess/data
> upload crashes and finally supersede with v3.  The Monterey County import
> was a constant struggle of "throttling down" Nathan's constant instinct to
> "spill buckets of import paint quickly and with little regard for data
> quality" until I hardcore task-managed the project between the two of us
> over months of careful project husbandry so it eventually became a sane and
> high-quality import of which we can both be proud.  Nathan is also
> notorious for, let's be candid, "making a mess of California's Central
> Valley" which, even to this day, I am not sure he has fully cleaned up.
>
> Nathan, I do not say these things lightly in a public forum like talk-us,
> but it appears that you are yet again taking a cavalier and hair-trigger
> approach to doing a major (MAJOR!) import in California.  If you wish to do
> so, please learn from your past that this is a tremendous effort, bigger by
> an order of magnitude or more than anything you have attempted to import
> before, listen to friends of yours like me and Denis (below) and bite off
> only as much as you can chew, with the technical, social and OSM community
> skills needed that it takes to complete such an endeavor.  We are asking
> you to please do it right this time, if indeed you feel that you can and
> will.  There are many, many tasks ahead if you wish to see these data in
> OSM and not even the first tasks of what would encourage me to say I see a
> high quality data import ahead have happened yet, save for posting the
> data.  THAT is often the first step of a hasty, poor (and ultimately
> redacted) data 

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

I couldn't agree more, Denis.  The only thing that this (poorly named/indexed 
in OSM's wiki) "Available Building Footprints" page mentions about importing is 
"Any import of these building footprints must strictly follow the import 
guidelines."  Well, then, please do so!  I'm not saying that this 
built-in-the-last-week wiki isn't informative, for what it is, it is.  However, 
it is not an import project (yet), and while Nathan implies these data (data 
are plural) SHOULD be imported, he has not taken the time nor effort to 
correctly turn these into a real import project (posting to the imports list, 
following our "five steps...").

Nathan just emailed me to say that he couldn't open the Bay Area shapefile 
either, saying he split it apart with QGIS.  He continues "Even though I split 
the file into different areas that file still seems to be the same size as the 
original. It's almost like the other data is still there even though it shows 
only the Bay Area shapes. Maybe some one else has a better way to split up the 
file. The Bay Area data all runs together so it is hard to see where natural 
splits occur. Maybe you (stevea) or some one else will have better luck trying 
to split it."  This does not bode well for someone who wants to lead or 
contribute to an import.  (Nathan, Nathan, Nathan...).

Nathan and I have become friends, we met eight years ago in OSM, go on many 
hikes and camping trips together, he comes to my house parties and we further 
collaborate via email.  I have worked with Nathan on numerous import tasks, 
noted in our Santa Cruz County wiki page, including the major (now in version 
3) import of Santa Cruz County landuse areas and the Monterey County California 
Farmland import.  The first one was nearly a disaster:  it took me four years 
to manually untangle Nathan's mess/data upload crashes and finally supersede 
with v3.  The Monterey County import was a constant struggle of "throttling 
down" Nathan's constant instinct to "spill buckets of import paint quickly and 
with little regard for data quality" until I hardcore task-managed the project 
between the two of us over months of careful project husbandry so it eventually 
became a sane and high-quality import of which we can both be proud.  Nathan is 
also notorious for, let's be candid, "making a mess of California's Central 
Valley" which, even to this day, I am not sure he has fully cleaned up.

Nathan, I do not say these things lightly in a public forum like talk-us, but 
it appears that you are yet again taking a cavalier and hair-trigger approach 
to doing a major (MAJOR!) import in California.  If you wish to do so, please 
learn from your past that this is a tremendous effort, bigger by an order of 
magnitude or more than anything you have attempted to import before, listen to 
friends of yours like me and Denis (below) and bite off only as much as you can 
chew, with the technical, social and OSM community skills needed that it takes 
to complete such an endeavor.  We are asking you to please do it right this 
time, if indeed you feel that you can and will.  There are many, many tasks 
ahead if you wish to see these data in OSM and not even the first tasks of what 
would encourage me to say I see a high quality data import ahead have happened 
yet, save for posting the data.  THAT is often the first step of a hasty, poor 
(and ultimately redacted) data import.  You have had opportunity after 
opportunity to do data imports into OSM and should be able to learn that there 
is a correct way to do it:  the only way to do it.

The next place I hope to read anything about this is on the imports list.

SteveA
California


> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Denis Carriere  wrote:
> 
> Instead of having tons of different people trying to attempt loading all of 
> these 8 Million buildings, we shoul collectively start an import proposal 
> (OSM wiki, draft a plan, set up tasking managers, pre-process data, host 
> entire dataset, etc...).
> 
> The best/easiest solution we (OSM Ottawa) did for importing 1M+ buildings was 
> to convert the data into GeoJSON and then convert them into VectorTiles using 
> Tippecanoe [0] and host them using our own custom server (Micro Data Service 
> [1]) which hosts those vector tiles into OSM & GeoJSON. After all the "hard 
> work" is done.. you can simply add those small chunks of data with JOSM using 
> any Tasking Manager by adding the URL [2] in Extra Instructions. An example 
> of a final OSM tile would look like this [3] which would be ready to import 
> (semi-manually).
> 
> There's also integration with QA-Tiles [4] to prevent loading any duplicate 
> data (this feature requires continuously loading the most current QA-Tile 
> during the import process).
> 
> Summary: Before anyone attempts to import this data, we need to create a plan 
> first. I'm more than willing to help out, but this would be a large task and 
> would need to be done collectively as a 

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints Date: March 28, 2017 at 2:06:33 AM PDT

[Denis Carriere]

Instead of having tons of different people trying to attempt loading all of
these 8 Million buildings, we shoul collectively start an import proposal
(OSM wiki, draft a plan, set up tasking managers, pre-process data, host
entire dataset, etc...).

The best/easiest solution we (OSM Ottawa) did for importing 1M+ buildings
was to convert the data into GeoJSON and then convert them into VectorTiles
using Tippecanoe [0] and host them using our own custom server (Micro Data
Service [1]) which hosts those vector tiles into OSM & GeoJSON. After all
the "hard work" is done.. you can simply add those small chunks of data
with JOSM using any Tasking Manager by adding the URL [2] in Extra
Instructions. An example of a final OSM tile would look like this [3] which
would be ready to import (semi-manually).

There's also integration with QA-Tiles [4] to prevent loading any duplicate
data (this feature requires continuously loading the most current QA-Tile
during the import process).

*Summary: *Before anyone attempts to import this data, we need to create a
plan first. I'm more than willing to help out, but this would be a large
task and would need to be done collectively as a group.

[0] https://github.com/mapbox/tippecanoe
[1] https://github.com/osmottawa/micro-data-service
[2]
http://localhost:8111/import?new_layer=true=https://data.osmcanada.ca/{z}/{x}/{y}/ottawa-buildings.osm
[3] https://data.osmcanada.com/15/9478/21019/ottawa-buildings.osm
[4] https://osmlab.github.io/osm-qa-tiles/

*~~*
*Denis Carriere*
*GIS Software & Systems Specialist*

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:

> Hi Nathan:
>
> I've got pretty beefy hardware, but the "Bay Area" shapefile pointed to by
> your recent post chokes my JOSM to a gasping strangle:  >3.7 million
> objects?!  These need to be broken up further to smaller files, to either
> the county level or even smaller to a sub-county level, in a sane way.  You
> may as well save them as .osm files (and host them on some other place
> besides a Microsoft cloud), as shapefiles still remain a "foreign" (though
> importable) format within OSM.
>
> SteveA
> California
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:00 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Available_Building_Footprints
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints Date: March 28, 2017 at 2:06:33 AM PDT

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Hi Nathan:

I've got pretty beefy hardware, but the "Bay Area" shapefile pointed to by your 
recent post chokes my JOSM to a gasping strangle:  >3.7 million objects?!  
These need to be broken up further to smaller files, to either the county level 
or even smaller to a sub-county level, in a sane way.  You may as well save 
them as .osm files (and host them on some other place besides a Microsoft 
cloud), as shapefiles still remain a "foreign" (though importable) format 
within OSM.

SteveA
California


> On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:00 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Available_Building_Footprints


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

[Nathan Mixter]

California has more than triple the amount of data available than any other
state. Importing it will be no small task but doing it in chunks by several
people will make it manageable. The buildings in the Bay Area alone in the
file stretch from Clear Lake way down to Hollister and run along the coast
in Santa Cruz all the way up the East Bay. Several other large cities and
areas are included in the data. There have been several imports of
buildings here in California and many people have put in a lot of work
tracing individual buildings. This data will tie in those imports and will
be a valuable addition. I broke the data apart further by region along with
the status of buildings in the areas on the main wiki page at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Available_Building_Footprints, and
there is a place for users to express interest. I would love to hear
further thoughts on this data set particularly on the data in California.
All the best,
Nathan


Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:34:21 +
> From: Eric Ladner 
> To: Clifford Snow , Brad Neuhauser
> 
> Cc: Rihards , talk-us 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints
> Message-ID:
>