On 07/15/2013 12:39 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
You're missing the context of that quote. The "should be in the form
of point data" is in what form NYC would release their data
Yes I did miss it -- thanks for the clarification. I no longer feel like
I wasted that time.
I suspect that I can continue thinking about the problem and
differentiate between building types (houses vs barns) based on other
factors, it makes it a more interesting problem for me anyway. My local
group meets on Thursday, maybe I will bring it up there too. I will
continue to plug away at it as time permits.
We expect anyone, with no external information, to be able to survey
an area. Tax lots aren't really surveyable, which is why we're
generally not in favor of including them on OSM.
This is an ASIDE -- I mentioned this "surveyable" concept to someone
locally and he laughed. Around here they ARE surveyable. Nearly everyone
has some kind of demarcation - a fence usually. At least a very close
approximation is quite visible.
My point was that the attributes are in the tax lot not the buildings,
not that I want to import tax lots. I have to cleanly transfer usable
attributes from tax lots to buildings. I am jealous that you have
buildings with attributes but probably won't move to NYC all the same.
I agree that local knowledge and manual survey are the best form of
data and what we should ideally be collecting. But then I think "A
million buildings sure is a lot of buildings" and would prefer to
start with *something*
Even 80,000 is a lot if you are working almost alone. Will get through
it anyway.
Cheers
Brian
_______________________________________________
Imports-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
