Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

t;>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:46 AM Begin Daniel wrote: >>>> Buildings where there is no available municipal data >>>> >>>> Sent from Galaxy S7 >>>> >>>> >>>> From: John Whelan >>>> Sent: Th

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

er open software? >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:46 AM Begin Daniel wrote: >> >>> Buildings where there is no available municipal data >>> >>> Sent from Galaxy S7 >>> >>> -- >>> *From:* John Whelan &

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

> *To:* Begin Daniel >> *Cc:* Talk-ca; keith hartley >> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import >> >> Are you talking about the older CANVEC data or the data that Stats has >> released which is really municipal data? >> >> Thanks John >> >> Be

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

iel *Cc:* Talk-ca; keith hartley *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import Are you talking about the older CANVEC data or the data that Stats has released which is really municipal data? Thanks John Begin Daniel wrote on 2019-03-28 8:31 AM: Someone has compared Bing and

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

2:32 AM > *To:* Begin Daniel > *Cc:* Talk-ca; keith hartley > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import > > Are you talking about the older CANVEC data or the data that Stats has > released which is really municipal data? > > Thanks John > > Begin Daniel wrote o

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Buildings where there is no available municipal data Sent from Galaxy S7 From: John Whelan Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 9:32:32 AM To: Begin Daniel Cc: Talk-ca; keith hartley Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import Are you talking about the older CANVEC data

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

*From:* OSM Volunteer stevea *Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:52:02 PM *To:* Talk-ca *Cc:* keith hartley *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import Ah, good dialog ensues.  Municipality by municipality, in conjunction with BOTH the StatsCan and Bing data, the right

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Someone has compared Bing and Canvec data in rural areas? Sent from Galaxy S7 From: OSM Volunteer stevea Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:52:02 PM To: Talk-ca Cc: keith hartley Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import Ah, good dialog ensues. Municipality

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Ah, good dialog ensues. Municipality by municipality, in conjunction with BOTH the StatsCan and Bing data, the right things are getting noticed, the right things are getting human-realized at what the next steps are to do. It gets better. Yay. Stitch it together. One municipality at a

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

than it >>>> wasn't present in the first release from Stats? >>>> >>>> Note to Alessandro this is just background stuff. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Cheerio John >>>> >>>> Begin Daniel wrote

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

To: Pierre Béland; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import Bonjour Pierre, Daniel, John et tous, Je ne doute pas de l'expertise de Daniel. Il n'y a rien de mal à utiliser des outils propriétaires lors de l'utilisation des données OSM. Cependant, lors de la création des

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

To: Pierre Béland; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import Bonjour Pierre, Daniel, John et tous, Je ne doute pas de l'expertise de Daniel. Il n'y a rien de mal à utiliser des outils propriétaires lors de l'utilisation des données OSM. Cependant, lors de la création des

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Bonjour Tim À partir de ce protoype développé par Daniel, il serait intéressant oui d'orienter le développement vers un outil OpenSource.  Il me ferait plaisir de participer avec toi, Daniel et d'autres si intéressés à développer un tel outil. De mon côté, je ne suis pas un expert SIG ni en

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Bonjour Pierre, Daniel, John et tous, Je ne doute pas de l'expertise de Daniel. Il n'y a rien de mal à utiliser des outils propriétaires lors de l'utilisation des données OSM. Cependant, lors de la création des données OSM, nous devons viser le processus le plus transparent possible (comme

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

We have a history of using CANVEC data and importing that.  Daniel was very closely connected to the data.  In Ontario the ESRI tools are used in schools but they can be used with openstreetmap as the base map.   From a practical point of view developing a set of tools or process in the open

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

han it wasn't >>> present in the first release from Stats? >>> >>> Note to Alessandro this is just background stuff. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Cheerio John >>> >>> Begin Daniel wrote on 2019-03-26 3:29 PM: >>> >&

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Cette discussion sur gis.stackexchange donne le lien vers OpenCarto sur Sourceforge et vers un document décrivant la méthode.https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/25263/is-there-any-open-source-building-squaring-tool Avec les fonctions PostGIS, à voir comment ST_ShortestLine ou fonction

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Bonjour Tim Mon outil d'analyse Qualité dont les données sont publiées sur OpenDataLabRDC est basé sur PostgreSQL-Postgis.   Je suis à nettoyer / documenter le code et prévoit le publier sur github.  J'ai commencé à regarder les outils possibles, mais peu de documentation disponible. On parle

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

I sent Daniel a sample of Montreal (Outrement) from the Open Building Database and Daniel's algorithm performed really well. It could reduce the vertices count by 13% without loosing or even improving data quality (as it orthogonalized the buildings). Even difficult buildings were treated well

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

>> Cheerio John >> >> Begin Daniel wrote on 2019-03-26 3:29 PM: >> >> Jarek, >> The area you proposed in quite interesting and will force me to look further >> at buildings with sharing edges, a concern Pierre also had. I'll be back >> soon with yo

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

> > -Original Message- > From: Begin Daniel [mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com ] > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 14:34 > To: Jarek Piórkowski; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import > > Jarek, > Since it is a one-time process, I expect to

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

e also had. I'll be back soon with your area processed. Daniel -Original Message- From: Begin Daniel [mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 14:34 To: Jarek Piórkowski; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import Jarek, Since it is a one-time process

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Voici les observations que j'ai fait à Daniel a partir des données du premier test qu'il a effectué pour Toronto. Un premier examen visuel pour le BBOX utilisé montre que l'outil a produit correctement les formes orthogonales en général. J'ai constaté cependant des cas où un des angles

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

, 2019 14:34 To: Jarek Piórkowski; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import Jarek, Since it is a one-time process, I expect to be able to process the files if the community feels comfortable with it. In the meantime, people are welcome to send me the bounding box

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

[mailto:ja...@piorkowski.ca] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 13:46 To: Begin Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 13:10, Begin Daniel wrote: > There is actually no standard “code” available since I use FME > (www.safe.com). It is a proprieta

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 13:10, Begin Daniel wrote: > There is actually no standard “code” available since I use FME > (www.safe.com). It is a proprietary ETL application and all operations are > done using “transformers” (https://www.safe.com/transformers/). I can provide > you with the

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

[mailto:ja...@piorkowski.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 12:15 > To: Begin Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 11:58, Begin Daniel wrote: > > a first version of the cleaning tool is now functional. > >

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

on the amount of data to process ;-) Cheers, Daniel -Original Message- From: Jarek Piórkowski [mailto:ja...@piorkowski.ca] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 12:15 To: Begin Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 11:58, Begin Daniel wrote

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 11:58, Begin Daniel wrote: > a first version of the cleaning tool is now functional. > > At this point, the tool is built to remove extra vertices, orthogonalize > building footprints (when possible) and identify overlapped geometries. > Details about the application are

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import Daniel, This is exciting news! After much talk on this list, it seems we may have some actual progress toward fixing the various data quality issues. Would you mind sharing some of your code, or a description of your workflow here or on GitHub or the like so we

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Nate are you requesting something specific on the Canadian task manager for Toronto at this time or would you prefer to look through Daniel's work first? Thanks Cheerio John Nate Wessel wrote on 2019-03-21 1:49 PM: Daniel, This is exciting news! After much talk on this list, it seems we

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2019 13:32 *To:* Begin Daniel *Cc:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import It would make logical sense to preprocess all the data but then you end up with two sources.  The Open Data original and the preprocessed data source. From

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import It would make logical sense to preprocess all the data but then you end up with two sources. The Open Data original and the preprocessed data source. From a logical point of view it would make sense to use the Microsoft data to fill

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

It would make logical sense to preprocess all the data but then you end up with two sources. The Open Data original and the preprocessed data source. >From a logical point of view it would make sense to use the Microsoft data to fill in the gaps. So add it into the preprocessed data. Then you

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

After further consideration, I have decided to unsubscribe to this mailing list, at least for the near future. I will not be participating in further discussion, but I don't plan to import any more buildings until you all reach a consensus. I have two reasons for this decision: - I don't enjoy

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

I think at this point in time we need to try to get some sort of agreement on how to proceed. My first thought would be to ban the youngsters so anyone under 65 shouldn't be involved. That way it would slow the process down unfortunately it isn't really practical. I think we need time to digest

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

I think, Montreal's OSMappers would appreciate to discuss the import of the buildings there first on the local list. By the way, John, I have never said I would be taking the lead for the entirety of Québec (at least, at the moment). However, I feel that the import should be discussed on the

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

John, les contributeurs de Ottawa, vous semblez en général d'accord pour poursuivre les imports et avez la capacité technique de faire des imports rapides, ce que vous avez démontré.  Il ne manque qu'un petit pas à franchir et discuter de la qualité des données et accepter de tenir compte des

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Which I think comes back to defining the local mappers. There has been discussion on Montreal as well and not all Ontario thinks the same way.  Ottawa local mappers for example have different opinions to Pierre and Nate on what is acceptable and I'm under the impression that not everyone in

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

On 2019-03-15 9:07 a.m., Andrew Lester wrote: I disagree. Silence won't solve anything. I'm speaking here as a local BC mapper, and I strongly disagree with these recent imports. I'm also a BC mapper, and have only seen the consultation happen over Ontario, not BC.

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

I think there are two issues here the first is I accept having a large number of anything by one mapper has the potential for a systematic error. If the import is verified by a second mapper independently I assume this would be acceptable? The second is more to do with discussion within the

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

onald" To: "talk-ca" Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 8:48:55 AM Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import OK, so this discussion has gone a bit off the rails. In terms of the DWG, this has all happened so fast - the referral to the DWG was less than 2 hours after

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Hi, On 15.03.19 16:23, Danny McDonald wrote: > I think many people on this list fundamentally misunderstand the way OSM > operates.  Most OSM contributions are made by individuals who see a > gap/mistake in the data and fix it. True! > It is not a "community process" > where contributions are

Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

At the end of the day one would hope we are a community.  We are a large group with divergent opinions and to be honest there is a great deal of interest in non-mappers in this sort of data. For example building data is being used in Tanzania to work out the optimal areas for group solar

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

OK, so this discussion has gone a bit off the rails. In terms of the DWG, this has all happened so fast - the referral to the DWG was less than 2 hours after the initial message, and was not in response to any actual edits I made after receiving Pierre's stop message. I suggest that we all stop

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

I certainly agree with that statement ! Importing should be much more rigorous and careful, as mistakes or poor execution is costly. > On Mar 15, 2019, at 11:29, Nate Wessel wrote: > > There is a massive difference between making edits without review and > importing millions of buildings

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import

Seriously Danny? Pierre was the first to suggest the DWG after you replied to him that wouldn't engage in further discussion. You only joined this conversation after I reported you. There is a massive difference between making edits without review and importing millions of buildings without

[Talk-ca] Building Import

By the way, I strongly object to the way Nate immediately went to the DWG, instead of attempting to engage in discussion. I think many people on this list fundamentally misunderstand the way OSM operates. Most OSM contributions are made by individuals who see a gap/mistake in the data and fix

Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

As an experienced local Ontario and Quebec mapper I don't see any major problems with Stats Can building quality. It's detailed and recent, it's the best dataset we could ever possibly get and it's far superior to Microsoft quality. Having many buildings with "almost square angles" in this dataset

[Talk-ca] Building Import

As previously noted, I will continue importing, unless I hear a specific valid concern. I will wait a week before re-starting, to allow time for concerns to be raised. To address some existing concerns: - Making buildings orthogonal isn't an improvement, it is degrading correct footprints for no

Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

I just reported this to the data working group, in case you haven't already. Hopefully they will step in! Cheers, Nate Wessel Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning NateWessel.com On 3/15/19 10:30 AM, Pierre Béland wrote: Réponse

Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

Given the scale of this illicit import (thanks Pierre for the stats!), I would, yes, stick my neck out and say that I oppose this action as a Canadian mapper. Contributors who are clearly violating community norms about discussion and consensus do not constitute an implicit consensus of some

Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

Réponse immédiate avec refus de discussion de la part de DannyMcD_imports. Celui-ci indique qu'il prévoit continuer l'import.voir  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67686901 | There was a discussion, issues were raised, the problems (to the extent that they existed at all) have been

Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

Bonjour Jarek Ce n'est malheureusement pas le seul contributeur qui agit ainsi.  J'estime en divisant (Objets/5) que depuis le 1er février, 6 contributeurs ont importé près de 1 million de bâtiments. Selon les commentaires, 5 provinces ont été couvertes. Cette information est parfois inexacte.

Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

If the local mappers in Alberta or BC feel the data quality is not good enough then I think it is up to them to take action but I think it really is up to the local mapping community and defining them is difficult sometimes.  Also remember agreements within the local community are not always

Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

IMO the huron/hamptonavemapper import is quite clearly in active disagreement with the import suspension - while I could believe that one user could overlook clicking on the wiki link in their changeset messages just once and seeing the bold "on hold", setting up a brand new similarly named

Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

I would suggest, again, that the tasking manager for this import be locked or taken down if that is not possible. One good way to stop people from importing when we don't have consensus is to not make it so easy for them. Indeed, I would find it plausible if these people said they didn't even

Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

The changeset comment messages link to the Stats Canada import plan on the OSM wiki. I missed it but there were also some edits in Alberta. Quebec edits I saw were only a couple, outside of Quebec. http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/148 has also been updated, and the Alberta tasks. It does raise

Re: [Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

Wicked lad importing without an import plan? Ask him nicely where the import plan for their imports is. Looks like a new mapper so may not know the rules. I think currently there are two sets of data that are licensed for import, the Stats Can stuff and the Microsoft stuff. I haven't seen any

[Talk-ca] Building import in BC and Quebec

Are people aware that there are buildings being imported by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/huronavemapper (most recent 12 hours ago) and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/hamptonavemapper (most recent 5 days ago)? I notice the wiki still says the import is on hold. Thanks, --Jarek

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

So are we happy with Yaro's suggestions? Or perhaps I should rephrase that can we live with them? On the task manager square size I take it these have been split and split again? Thanks John On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 18:08, Yaro Shkvorets wrote: > Briefly, here are my thoughts. > 1)

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Briefly, here are my thoughts. 1) *Simplification*, i.e. removing nodes in the middle of a straight line. We should be able to apply this fix to the original data. Looks like James has done it a couple of weeks ago, so we can try take this data and go with it if there are no objections. 2) *Almost

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2019 19:05 To: Pierre Béland Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update I'm not hearing we have a clear consensus on modifying the shape of buildings with scripts and the Q button. My own personal view is it could introduce errors

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

I'm not hearing we have a clear consensus on modifying the shape of buildings with scripts and the Q button. My own personal view is it could introduce errors and unless it is very obviously wrong when it should get picked up by the importing mapper it should be left as is. Cheerio John On Sun,

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

I dislike sounding simply "like a cheerleader," here however, I am deeply encouraged by what I see as substantial progress. This sort of discussion bodes very well for the future of the import. Keep up the good work! SteveA On Feb 3, 2019, at 3:26 PM, john whelan wrote: > I'm hearing we

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

I'm hearing we keep the single import project as such. I'm hearing that we should preprocess the data first splitting out outlines that meet Pierre's right angle checks. This data can just be imported using the current processes. I'm hearing we should then run the correcting scripts and extract

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Je suggère oui, d'abord le script avec 2 fichiers d'output parce qu'ensuite il sera beaucoup plus simple d'importer les données déja corrigées. Sinon une variable pour distinguer les deux et risque de l'importer dans OSM ? Et je pense à un autre aspect. Le script pourrait s'assurer qu'il n'y a

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

I accept the nicest way is to check the data beforehand. Scripting it is fairly simple. Are you suggesting a two stage process of take the data and run the script first then task manager the data to be imported to manually correct the data? My eyesight isn't good enough to pick out none right

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

John Oui, je suggère  à ceux qui préparent un plan d'importation, de modifier la donnée avant l'importation. Des critères comme ceux que j'ai présenté pourraient être utilisés dans un script pour simplifier les polygones qui sont quasi orthogonaux. Pour simplifier la procédue d'import, deux

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

So you're proposing that a script is run to correct minor deviations in the remaining data which sounds a reasonable approach to me and would improve data quality. So run the data through the script. Then import and run overpass to pick out those that need manual adjustment? If we do this

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

The Ottawa building outline import was done by the local Ottawa mappers to a standard they were happy with. Cheerio John On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 14:42, Pierre Béland wrote: > De tes exemples sortis du chapeau ne font pas avancer la discussion. > > J'attends la démonstration de John que les

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Pierre writes that he is "waiting for John's demonstration that the import data for Ottawa represents the outline of the buildings and is quality data." In reality, anybody (not necessarily John) can offer this sort of characterization. En réalité, n'importe qui (pas nécessairement John) peut

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

De tes exemples sortis du chapeau ne font pas avancer la discussion. J'attends la démonstration de John que les données d'import pour Ottawa représentent bien le contour des bâtiments et sont des données de qualité.   Pierre Le dimanche 3 février 2019 12 h 07 min 55 s HNE, john whelan

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Le «acid test» de John, avec une architecture aussi irrégulière, a abimé les «Bay Windows» et l'eau fuit de partout tout comme son analyse basée sur Orléans à l'extérieur de la zone étudiée ! Une analyse plus approfondie de la zone du centre-ville nous montre qu'il y a peu de telles

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

>From OSMweekly 445 and I'm not sure if it is relevant or not. Cheerio John Imports - Frederik Ramm suggested reverting a four-year-old building import in Ulster County, New York State, because only simple

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

If they weren't hand traced, how were they made? I don't believe I've actually seen any documentation on this. Do we know how these buildings footprints were made? Just because we didn't trace them from imagery ourselves doesn't mean someone working for a city GIS department didn't do exactly

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

On squaring buildings, no one has yet been explained why buildings should be square. My understanding is that non-square buildings are a warning sign for mapathons with hand-traced buildings - the lack of squaring is often noticeable for hand-traced buildings, and indicative of generally poor

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

On Feb 1, 2019, at 1:13 PM, john whelan wrote: > So how would you tackle it? > > Adding buildings with JOSM and the buildings_tool is possible, I think Julia > tried to whip up some interest with the 2020 project. Unfortunately > mapathons using iD and new mappers for some reason don't work

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

, 2019 08:54 > *To:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update > > > > John, > > IMO, this is a red herring and I think you must recognize that to at least > some degree. Just like no one suggested we do 3700 import plans, no on has > sugge

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

+1 From: Nate Wessel [mailto:bike...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 08:54 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update John, IMO, this is a red herring and I think you must recognize that to at least some degree. Just like no one suggested we do 3700

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

John, IMO, this is a red herring and I think you must recognize that to at least some degree. Just like no one suggested we do 3700 import plans, no on has suggested that we not add buildings to OSM. The question is how, and if that "how" in part is an import, then what data, at what speed,

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=arthur%20mark%20drive%20port%20hope%20ontario#map=17/43.96262/-78.27069 https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.9631101,-78.2732195,17.25z https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH3 Port Hope Ontario is relatively obscure yet both Bing and google have buildings and

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

On Jan 31, 2019, at 5:47 PM, john whelan wrote: > > I note that both Google and Bing have most buildings these days That's a strong assertion, any cite you might make? Or are you simply guessing? Also, so what? And, "most?" > and it has almost become a map user expectation. Do you have

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

I can't think of a way to pull in all the suspect buildings but if you have a look here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=k4a%201m7%20canada#map=19/45.47095/-75.48696 556, 558, 560 are all examples that I think would fail your test. However they are the shape of the buildings. As far

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Salut John, Voici les résultats d'analyse de géométrie des bâtiments pour Ottawa centre-ville.bbox : 45.4224,-75.6994,45.4568,-75.6122 -  20,372 Bâtiments -      173 Bâtiments avec superposition  (0.1%) -   11,534 Bâtiments avec formes irrégulières  (56.6%) Nous avons donc un résultat semblable

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Hey Nate, I've also looked into it and came across this paper: https://www.josis.org/index.php/josis/article/view/276/166 Sounds like what we need. IMO this is the kind of stuff that needs to be dealt with in JOSM on a per-square basis rather than modifying original data. So you have control over

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Ok John, je vais lancer le script pour Ottawa. Mais je dois régler petit soucis d'instabilité  windows avec java et osmosis.  Ne peut mettre a jour java. Et powershell refuse parfois de reconnaitre commandes exe. Parmi tous les scripts de conversion de raster / vectoriel, il serait oui

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

As far as I know Texas has been using 2 sources for their buildings imports. 1. Microsoft, (example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/32.74517/-97.14334) Even in suburbs (that are supposed to be easy for their AI), buildings lack any details and sometimes are not even aligned

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Hi all, I was reading about orthogonalization yesterday and came across this paper... https://icaci.org/files/documents/ICC_proceedings/ICC2009/html/refer/19_2.pdf ...which describes an algorithm that seems to quite effectively disregard angles that are not close to orthogonal while

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Interesting, although I'm not sure what the best approach is. 31 Hamilton is interesting. If you look at the buildings next to it they don't have house numbers. Look at the history and you'll see it was first created in 2010 with potlatch and edited once more in 2011. At my first glance at

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Bonjour John La géométrie des bâtiments est un sujet qui préoccupe plusieurs contributeurs en particulier pour les imports de données. Dans un tel cas, il est difficile de revenir en arrière et il est préférable de bien planifier, analyser.  Comme on le voit avec l'import en Ontario, on observe

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

If you take a look at 942 Bridle Path Crescent for example whilst it isn't exactly square the deviations from 90 degrees to me are relatively minor. I assume that this is the sort of thing you are talking about?

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Nate je viens juste de publier les résultats pour Kingston. Un ratio de 66% de polygones avec formes irrégulières. A voir si la simplification éliminerait les noeuds qui ont pour effet de créer des formes irrégulières. Je n'ai pas encore regardé de près les résultats. Cependant, m on

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Voici mon analyse de la géométrie des bâtiments pour Kingston.  À partir des uid des contributeurs ayant participé à l'import, j'ai téléchargé pour Kingston 5,261 batîments créés ou modifiés par eux depuis le 24 décembre. Le fichier résultat montre 5,253 batiments, quelques polygones en erreur

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

James, It does seem that someone will need to properly simplify the data since you don't seem willing to do the necessary work. I've already offered to help, but I can't do it today, or tomorrow for that matter. My suggestion, again, is that we slow down and take the time to do this right.

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

I'm not installing postgesql for you to accept simplification, that YOU said was required because there were 2x as many points(which was proved wrong via the simplification) If you want to have fun with the file, go a head. On Sat., Jan. 26, 2019, 2:00 p.m. Nate Wessel Building count doesn't

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Building count doesn't really have anything to do with preserving topology, and I'm not sure a visual inspection would cut it - Can you look at the documentation for this tool and verify that it preserves the topology of polygon layers? This is a good illustration of the (potential) problem:

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

On Jan 26, 2019, at 8:42 AM, Nate Wessel wrote: Four absolutely OUTSTANDING aspects of this project which can (seemingly must) be addressed before the Task Manager releases these (or improved/simplified) data. A salute to you, Nate, for these thoughtful words and their potential to very

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

it does if you saw my analysis of building(polygon count) remains the same also visually inspected a few and there was preservation of them On Sat., Jan. 26, 2019, 11:43 a.m. Nate Wessel Does that preserve topology between buildings that share nodes? > Nate Wessel > Jack of all trades, Master of

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Does that preserve topology between buildings that share nodes? Nate Wessel Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning NateWessel.com On 1/26/19 11:31 AM, James wrote: no need for scripts, qgis does this fine via the Vector menu -> Geometry

  1   2   >