Guys, Don't get overly exited about the building shapes. The quality of those shapes is quite variable. For free standing houses they are OK - in some cases even excellent, but for urban areas they are not very useful, certainly not as a source for import. I have been using those shapes for quite a while for comparison in cases where severe projection distortion and strong shadows gave me a hard time to figure out the shape of a particular building and in many cases the shapes in GRB were not better or even worse than my own "guesstimation". They're OK for "second opinions" but I would never use a tool to import those shapes. Just my 2 cents.
BTW, there are many other items in GRB besides the building shapes which are very helpful: shapes of administrative plots, railways (including disused tracks), streetnames, waterways, etc..). GRB also contains house numbers, but I prefer to use the CRAB WMS for that ( http://geo.agiv.be/inspire/wms/Adressen?). I've had a few cases where the CRAB numbers were different from those in GRB. After consulting with the local GIS administrator in all cases CRAB was right and GRB was wrong. It seems that CRAB and GRB are still not completely in sync... Gilbert On 5 January 2015 at 14:14, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the worst case, we could try to do something with the Tracer2 plugin > for JOSM > See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Tracer2 > > regards > > m > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That is indeed great news! Does it mean we'll be able to use the building >> outlines/contours as well then, in the foreseeable future? And, if so, >> would they be available as vectors/shape files, like in the UrbIS dataset? >> Or am I mistaken and is that in CRAB and not in GRB? >> >> Jo >> >> 2015-01-05 12:03 GMT+01:00 Glenn Plas <gl...@byte-consult.be>: >> >>> Thanks Jan for keeping us in the loop. This is awesome news. >>> >>> Glenn >>> >>> >>> >>> On 05-01-15 11:08, Jan Laporte wrote: >>> > GRB currently is in the process of becoming open data. The agreement is >>> > signed and official. Only the GRB-decree needs to be edited now before >>> > it effectively is open data. I can unfortunately not give a timing for >>> that. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > In any case, it’ll be allowed quite soon. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > cheers >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > *From:*André Pirard [mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com] >>> > *Sent:* donderdag 1 januari 2015 17:49 >>> > *To:* OpenStreetMap Belgium >>> > *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk-be] WMS (aerial) imagery covering Belgium, now >>> > conveniently packaged for adding it to JOSM >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 2015-01-01 16:19, Glenn Plas wrote : >>> > >>> > The danger in not adding GRB layer is that people will 'correct' >>> using >>> > >>> > Bing, and we all know where that leads to... >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > We should focus on efforts in getting GRB to open up. I'm terribly >>> > >>> > frustrated by people deleting buildings using Bing while I have >>> added >>> > >>> > all new buildings using Agiv, doublechecked using GRB and addressed >>> > >>> > properly only to find out that the get deleted by some oblivious >>> user. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-be mailing list >>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
