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

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

no need for scripts, qgis does this fine via the Vector menu -> Geometry tools -> Simplify Geometries utility. I simplified it to 20cm with the , but I think 40cm is too aggressive. I already have scripts to compile it into the dataformat needed to be served. On Sat., Jan. 26, 2019, 11:16 a.m.

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

Hi all, The wiki page is indeed looking a whole lot better right now - my thanks and congrats to everyone who contributed! There is a still a ways to go, but we seem to be getting there quickly. I'll echo John in saying that I would appreciate hearing from some of the other people who

Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update

I'm not certain how this addresses the concerns raised by Andrew Lester and Pierre Béland, and I seem to recall one other person who expressed concerns. I think it is important that their concerns are addressed. Perhaps they would be kind enough to comment on whether or not this approach