Hello,

  I agree also here - you should import as little as possible, and even better 
if never.

  But I have more general question here - is there a good enough repository for 
this kind of data sources? I have put some datasets as prepared .osm files to 
our ftp/website, but these tend to get outdated there before anyone really 
finds them. A central OSM file storage would be maybe too much (with online 
converter from shape to osm), but at least meta-directory would be nice, so 
this could be integrated to P2 and JOSM? In principle something there is GPS 
track database.

 Btw, I have tried the vector layer feature of P2, but for my (a bit 
larger/country-wide) datasets it did not work. I guess here you have also 
several MB files , not just couple of lines, so you need to break up the 
dataset to smaller regions or thematic "layers". I have also done conversion to 
.osm files with appropriate tagging before sharing the files, and used JOSM to 
copy&merge objects individually.

Jaak

On 19.07.2011, at 0:06, Jorge Gustavo wrote:

> Hi Mayeul,
> 
> Very nice work indeed.
> 
> But I agree with Frederik, and I would not recommend to upload anything.
> The key difference between OSM and other maps is the local knowledge of the 
> mappers. Info in the OSM should be provided by the ones who really knows that 
> place. That's why it is (or will be better than any other map :-) I agree 
> with imports related to non physical things, like administrative boundaries, 
> etc.
> 
> But you can contribute by calculating, for example, the OSM building coverage 
> in some countries or cities, and then let the community knows how bad/good is 
> the current OSM coverage. Ex:
> Berlin        80%
> Geneve    60%
> Milan        45%
> etc
> 
> These indicators can be used to motivate the community and to help to 
> evaluate the OSM (building) coverage.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jorge
> 
> P.S.
> I can also take advantage of your work, if you are willing to share the 
> results, since I'm personally interested in 3D models (and I could use your 
> polygons in research projects). Let me know if you are interested in some 
> research collaboration.
> 
> On 18-07-2011 18:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Mayeul KAUFFMANN wrote:
>>> We would like to run our script on Bing data to upload the result to OSM. 
>>> We have built the technical capacity to run it on a global scale on (very) 
>>> high resolution satellite imagery. We would like to discuss with the 
>>> community the best way to upload the data
>> 
>> Be aware that there is no plain "uploading" to OSM. As you have already 
>> said, your data might conflict with existing data and you cannot just load 
>> it into OSM on a global scale. What you could do is provide your data as an 
>> extra data source - say, a shape file - and make it available to mappers who 
>> could then, with the help of e.g. Potlatch's Vector Background feature, copy 
>> individual, selected data objects from your dataset into OSM.
>> 
>>> On OSM, there are several tags that are related to our understanding of 
>>> density of building layer.
>>> Some of them are:
>>> density= (with categories or percentage)
>>> building:density:grade = (with numerical category)
>> 
>> Neither of those are widely used.
>> 
>>> In the wiki there for tagging settlements in a 0-30 scale (rank)
>>> according to importance.
>> 
>> These are also in very limited use, and the rank is not intended to imply a 
>> density but an importance.
>> 
>> The only thing that is really widely used in OSM is "landuse=residential", 
>> meaning this is a residential area. This is a yes/no thing; you cannot have 
>> a "50% residential" area, and we don't usually distinguish different grades 
>> of population density.
>> 
>> That's not saying that you couldn't add some kind of qualifier to 
>> landuse=residential as long as you remain within the usual bounds; for 
>> example, it would not be ok to tag an area which has one building per square 
>> kilometre as "landuse=residantial, density=1%" or so, because something so 
>> sparsely built up is not a residential area in our terms.
>> 
>>> We could build on those with some additional data or create similar tags
>>> to upload polygons to OSM.
>> 
>> As I said, I don't recommend that you upload anything; just make your data 
>> available for local mappers who want to use it to supplement their work. 
>> This means that your data will not land in OSM in areas where we have no 
>> mappers, but that's ok; it is never a good idea to have data without people 
>> to care for it.
>> 
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports


_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports

Reply via email to