On Tue, July 3, 2018 10:46 am, Rupert Allan wrote: > > [..] 'some data being better than no data' [..]
Yes but, in that case, landuse combined with density and/or building type attributes do the job more cheaply and with none of the low quality stigma. But, of course, there may be other reasons for insisting on building shapes. > Building materials and standards are used to map [..] > A simple look at OSM metrics of, say, thousands of > grass rooves amongst tin rooves in a fire, or hundreds of mud > walls instead of concrete in an immanent flood, really helps. > At this point, this data directly impacts > and/or saves thousands of lives. > > That's my obsession. > > *Rupert Allan* > Country Manager - Uganda While building=hut is a useful distinction that is widely recorded in relevant locations (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=hut#map, the building=material you seem to refer to is actually not very popular outside of Europe (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/building%3Amaterial#map) - in your country it only appears 693 times (http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/A2C) Most of the buildings I seen in Senegal and Mali are building=yes with no other attribute... So, for now at least, this is not a question of building materials. _______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
