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] Saints in street names in Ontario

I agree with Jarek, St. should generally not be expanded for English Canadian street names. The proper spelling is St. (or St) even if the pronunciation is Saint. name:pronunciation ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name:pronunciation) is a tag that can capture the pronunciation, if

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

[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

[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] Microsoft has released its building outlines for Canada

Just looking at the data for some random areas, it looks like the quality is comparable to hand-drawn buildings (but not as good as most municipal data). There are some weirdly rotated and sized buildings, as well as some missing buildings, there may be other problems in areas I haven't examined.

Re: [Talk-ca] Some feedback on import quality in Toronto

should do it I guess. > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 7:51 PM Danny McDonald wrote: > >> I largely agree with Yaro, but will say >> 1) It is possible to square almost square angles with JOSM - it has an >> informational warning in validation, and automatically squa

Re: [Talk-ca] Some feedback on import quality in Toronto

I largely agree with Yaro, but will say 1) It is possible to square almost square angles with JOSM - it has an informational warning in validation, and automatically squares the angle by slightly moving the offending node. This fix doesn't ruin the geometry of the building, as pressing Q so often

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] OSM Canada building import

As I said before, I'd like to hear about specific problems that need to be fixed, For instance, the issues Nate raised before about large retail buildings and buildings in buildings were helpful to know about, and I believe I have fixed those issues in the areas I imported. I have also done

Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 131, Issue 48

1. In terms of validation, it would be helpful to have a clear idea of what sorts of problems need to be fixed. I have re-validated almost all of the areas I imported (and all of them in Central Toronto), and fixed all of the building related errors/warnings I found (with a few exceptions) there

Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 131, Issue 46

Personally, I'm eager to re-start importing, but I'd like to hear what Nate has to offer. Nate, are you OK with the wiki import process as written? If not, are there specific things you want changed? The current process is the one Yaro followed, although John and I basically did the same thing

Re: [Talk-ca] Place Tagging

=suburbs, based on distinctness. DannyMcD On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:53 PM OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: > On Jan 24, 2019, at 7:50 AM, Danny McDonald wrote: > > My understanding of place tagging is that place=city, place=town, and > place=village are for

[Talk-ca] Ongoing Place Reclassification needs to be stopped, possibly reverted

Repeating this, since it seemed to get bumped by all the building import talk. Now with a catchier subject line. DannyMcD My understanding of place tagging is that place=city, place=town, and place=village are for distinct urban settlements, whether or not they are separate municipalities.

[Talk-ca] Place Tagging

My understanding of place tagging is that place=city, place=town, and place=village are for distinct urban settlements, whether or not they are separate municipalities. Place=suburb is for large parts of urban settlements (such as North York in Toronto, or Kanata in Ottawa). Whether to classify