Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

On 26-01-16 04:27, Marc Gemis wrote: > Thanks for the feedback. My pleasure. Thanks for discussing and questioning this, this is good. > > I seems like I always stumble upon cases like this (also with De Lijn, > house numbers, Dutch import). So no surprise that I am critical about > "imports"

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

On 26-01-16 05:33, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Glenn Plas wrote: >> Also, make sure when you create your better OSM bulding, tag it >> source:geometry=AGIV (I think to recognise agiv sats). > > What do I have to do with source:geometry:date in

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

Thanks for the feedback. I seems like I always stumble upon cases like this (also with De Lijn, house numbers, Dutch import). So no surprise that I am critical about "imports" (or manually merged data from another DB). With your procedure we can avoid that such data creeps into OSM, but you have

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Glenn Plas wrote: > Also, make sure when you create your better OSM bulding, tag it > source:geometry=AGIV (I think to recognise agiv sats). What do I have to do with source:geometry:date in those cases ?

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

On 25-01-16 14:06, Marc Gemis wrote: > What's the planning for the import ? > > * Glenn finishes documentation (although I think it's (almost) ready) The highlights are ready, but I've encountered plenty of situations that we will run into that need more detailed documentation. I've made some

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

2016-01-25 15:37 GMT+01:00 Glenn Plas : > On 25-01-16 14:06, Marc Gemis wrote: > > * We pass this somehow through the import mailing list ( I fear we > > cannot avoid this). Sander, you have some experience with this. What > > do you think ? > > This needs to pass indeed,

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

On 25-01-16 14:54, Marc Gemis wrote: > So you are saying a need a couple of weeks more to finalise the tool. More like a few hours (2/3 hrs). Cleanup the code a bit, perhaps remove all my chaos inline documentation anchors :) The verification part (with overpass stuff built in), I can write that

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

What's the planning for the import ? * Glenn finishes documentation (although I think it's (almost) ready) * We pass this somehow through the import mailing list ( I fear we cannot avoid this). Sander, you have some experience with this. What do you think ? * We have a face-to-face meeting /

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

So you are saying a need a couple of weeks more to finalise the tool. Then 2-3 weeks discussion on the import mailing list which means we could plan a face-to-face meeting in 2 months ? I think that planning a face-to-face meeting can start now, so people that are interested can keep a day free

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Glenn Plas wrote: >> * splitting a building because the garage is clearly separated on AGIV >> imagery > > You should not have to do that imho, I've never encountered this 'too > much building in between' situation. When the garage is

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Glenn Plas wrote: >> which means we could plan a face-to-face meeting in 2 months ? > > For me it's ok to do this sooner, I really don't want to wait another 2 > months to start on this, summer is coming and this is going to keep me > inside

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

A short question about source:geometry. Should I/we keep it when we modify the building afterwards. I'm thinking of the following cases * In the meantime, part of the building got destroyed * The building got finished in the meantime * straighten the corners * connecting 2 building parts because

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

Hi Marc, On 25-01-16 17:05, Marc Gemis wrote: > A short question about source:geometry. Feel free to ask > > Should I/we keep it when we modify the building afterwards. I'm > thinking of the following cases When I modified a building manually because GRB is not correct, I change this to

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

On 25-01-16 19:38, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Glenn Plas wrote: >>> * splitting a building because the garage is clearly separated on AGIV >>> imagery >> >> You should not have to do that imho, I've never encountered this 'too >> much building in

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

> I also mean when the geometry in OSM is actually better than in > the GRB. I'm thinking in particular about VIVES in Bruges. The GRB > building shape is just wrong. In OSM it's better (may be not > perfect, it's a complex building) and 3D mapped. >

[OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

Thursday 21 January 2016 05:35:11, Marc Gemis: > At this moment someone is working on converting the GRB data into something > that can be "easily" imported. > (...) Great that we'll have a more or less complete map of the buildings in Flanders. I know some places where OSM already has much

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

Sunday 24 January 2016 18:13:02, Jo: > You could add note on them, but there is no guarantee that it gets read or > acted upon, so it's probably a waste of bytes to do so. There are tools > that let you watch over certain areas that have your interest, then you can > revert and send a message to

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

Ruben, The import is a lot more complicated than the CRAB import, but also less monkey work, so there will only be a few people doing that import. Normally those will also be careful about what they import, but they should also be easy to contact, so you can warn them on beforehand. However, now

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

As the other pointed out, the import has to be done /will be done carefully. Glenn try it in a mostly empty area and of course it goes much faster. In an area with buildings, we will keep all existing information. The replace geometry functionality in JOSM + utilsplugin2 is your friend. The

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

It's up to the mapper that does the import to check each building individually. It's not different than noticing that a building is partly destroyed on the AGIV imagery and adapting the GRB building according to that. m On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Ruben Maes wrote: >

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

The current test procedure respects previous editing work, because the goal is not to import GRB data (not = CRAB) into OSM, but to improve OSM data with GRB. That means keeping history on an existing building intact, taking into account that a human has entered the original tags in case of

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

Sunday 24 January 2016 19:03:35, Glenn Plas: > (...) > In the whole of Stekene, I probably deleted no more than 20 buildings > on multiple thousands that got imported with good reasons. Deleting > is not an issue. > (...) > Tag migration and merging takes more time than replaceing the geometry >