Greg, please indicate when you are citing what others (here Microsoft) have written, this makes it much easier to see where there is actually new information, in particular here where you know that most have read what Microsoft has written on their data.
I will comment on a few of the new things you have written but like to emphasize this is still not an import review because a lot of information required for that is missing. You could however read up old discussions on previous building imports here to get an idea on the requirements and suggestions made for those. > [...] In my early opinion, the foot prints are no > better nor no worse than a craft mapper,s drawing. This is always a pretty meaningless comparison because it is apples and peaches. When i talk about "quality aspects" i mean quantifiable measures of quality. > [...] As your > other post provided an idea of starting with Montana, that will not > be useful in my case. I suggested rural Montana might be a good place to start if you intend "to poke the data for quality issues". Since that is not what you want to do my suggestion is pretty useless for you obviously. > > Microsoft's process documentation contains a number of hints that > > indicate things can go wrong in the process in ways that are likely > > to produce significant errors of kinds that are very unlikely to > > happen in manual mapping. Without having reliable data on how > > often these things do happen (and how this varies between different > > geographic settings) you would essentially be doing a blind import. > > Depending on the craft mapper, hand drawn buildings can have the same > problems. [...] As i have been very clear about this is not the case: > > Microsoft's process documentation contains a number of hints that > > indicate things can go wrong in the process in ways that are likely > > to produce significant errors of kinds that are very unlikely to > > happen in manual mapping. The only thing that could convince me to change this assessment would be - as already mentioned - a thorough analysis of the quality that holds up to scientific scrutiny. And it is frankly much more likely that such analysis would confirm my impression. If it does not that would mean Microsoft has made progress in the field that absolutely dwarfs everyone else working in the area and if that was the case we would see it on the stock market. ;-) Don't make the mistake of assuming this to be a building data set like various ones produced by local authorities or mapping institutions some of which have been considered for import or have been imported in the past. It is not. Therefore again my statement: IMO this means that a proper import review would only be possible based on a thorough analysis of the quality of Microsoft's product that holds up to scientific scrutiny. I would also strongly suggest everyone who wants to work with the data Microsoft released now to familiarize themselves with the technological background behind this. Given that we will certainly see much more of this being pushed into everyday life in various fields that is highly useful knowledge anyway even beyond OSM. I have written a short essay on the matter some time ago that could serve as a starting point: http://blog.imagico.de/on-imitated-problem-solving/ though this is without links to further information, you would have to research that yourself. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
