I assume the quality depends on the GIS person adding the data. If he/she is less motivated/less capable/... the quality will be less.
The example that you give seems like the classic case where the building was not yet finished when it was traced. Then they always draw a small rectangle along the front side. regards m On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Sander Deryckere <sander...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think Pablo also helped in some pieces of the GRB: > http://www.geopunt.be/kaart?viewer_url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.geopunt.be%2Fresources%2Fapps%2FGeopunt-kaart_app%2Findex.html%3Fid%3Dff8080814a6e1332014abb6b94c80023 > > Is it normal that quality differs from municipality to municipality? In > Staden, I haven't seen any problem with GRB. But in Roeselare, I often bump > into problems like these. Buildings with a completely clear form (however, > they're often quite new, so perhaps drawn without aerial pics), but drawn > completely wrong in GRB. > > Up until now, I've avoided the old centre of the town, because the > building layouts are way too complicated there. It might get easier when we > have access to the GRB. > > So yes, an automated import won't work, but being able to use it opens up > a lot of perspectives, so thanks to anyone involved. > > Regards, > Sander > > 2015-01-05 15:35 GMT+01:00 Gilbert Hersschens <gherssch...@gmail.com>: > >> In comparison to Bing even Picasso wins ;-) >> >> On 5 January 2015 at 15:30, Glenn Plas <gl...@byte-consult.be> wrote: >> >>> In my experience, the outlines and building shapes I've seen in GRB are >>> like 10 times better than all the work that exists using bing and other >>> sources. >>> >>> A one on one copy would be silly, but if you bring it all together, >>> agiv/grb and osm data, it helps to make sense of what you are looking >>> at. Also it is conclusive usually when new buildings replace older. >>> It's the best source, I don't really care if the house isn't exactly >>> as-is. >>> >>> The housenumber inports will take years, but it's fine as it is as tons >>> of intelligent choices and conclusions, mistakes and other uglynes needs >>> to be fixed too. And it all helps, if you overlay them with some >>> transparacy adding GRB would be an awesome tool. >>> >>> I've been doing housenumer entries for weeks now, grb layer would >>> defenitely be of good help. But never a dumb copy. >>> >>> Glenn >>> >>> On 05-01-15 15:05, Gilbert Hersschens wrote: >>> > 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. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
