On Thursday 20 October 2016, James wrote: > Christoph, the source data for buildings has 0 tags that need to be > translated as it is only building footprints and *0 attributes*. The > source on an Ottawa web site/federal website is non-existant for the > time being as: the city of ottawa litterally gave statscan a file on > a flash drive to deal with it: [...]
Well - without context on specifications and origin of the data i cannot properly assess the import plans for it. We do not even know when this data was surveyed. Overall this approach is highly questionable. Apparently someone working for the City of Ottawa would like to see this data in OSM so they make exactly this data in exactly the form they like to see in OSM available and lobby for having it imported - without any evidence regarding the quality and suitability of the data. If after the import it becomes evident that there were systematic quality problems with the original data - will they accept responsibility to fix these problems in OSM then? Or do they truly believe the data being flawless because it was prepared by 'GIS professionals'? Sorry if i come across here overly strong - but the attitude communicated so far, which comes across clearly as 'these import plans are beyond reproach so any concerns are obviously without basis' is quite disrespectful for those who invest time to point out possible problems. As Steward indicated you would be well advised to take the Los Angeles buildings import as an example. > Des Forets Avenue (What's wrong with this? There are french road > names especially in orleans "Des Forest" means Forests in English) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/For%C3%AAt Note these are just examples from a few tiles i looked at. It is very likely that the whole data set contains more of such cases. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
