Even in het Nederlands als ik mag.
De gemeentes zijn verantwoordelijk voor 'hun' GRB. Ik vermoed dat alle
gemeentes de opbouw van hun GRB uitbesteed hebben aan landmeters. Misschien dat
updates (zie bv.
https://www.agiv.be/news/2014/december/update-grootschalig-referentiebestand-20-12-2014)
door de gemeentes zelf aan het GRB worden toegevoegd. Maar het is dus perfect
mogelijk dat de kwaliteit in de ene gemeente minder is dan in een andere
gemeente. Maar ze zouden eigenlijk toch allemaal moeten voldoen aan de eisen
die door AGIV zijn opgelegd.
De gebouwen in het GRB zijn gebaseerd op topografische opmetingen op terrein en
op luchtfoto's. Waar mogelijk zijn de voorgevels opgemeten: die zouden dus
behoorlijk correct moeten zijn. De rest is gebaseerd op de luchtfoto's. Zo
krijg je soms vreemde toestanden van recente gebouwen waarvan de voorgevel is
opgemeten, maar het achterliggende stuk grotendeels ontbreekt omdat ze niet op
de luchtfoto's staan/stonden. De huizen in Beekstraat 55-61 zijn waarschijnlijk
zo'n geval.
Groetje,
StijnRR
From: Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>
To: OpenStreetMap Belgium <talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-be] WMS (aerial) imagery covering Belgium, now
conveniently packaged for adding it to JOSM
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
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
