[Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[stevea]

Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is a "home list" for me.

I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public sources, 
http://www.osm.org/way/842280873 .  This is a huge fire (sadly, there are 
larger ones right now, too), over 130 square miles, and caused the evacuation 
of every third person in my county (yes).  There are hundreds, perhaps 
thousands of structures, mostly residential homes, which have burned down and 
the event has "completely changed" giant redwoods in and the character of 
California's oldest state park (Big Basin).

This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover and human patterns of 
movement and activity in this part of the world for a significant time to come. 
 It is a "major disaster."  I'm curious how HOT teams might delineate such a 
thing (and I've participated in a HOT fire team, mapping barns, water sources 
for helicopter dips and other human structures during a large fire near me), 
I've simply made a polygon tagged fire=perimeter, a name=* tag and a 
start_date.  I don't expect rendering, it's meant to be an "up to right about 
here" (inside the polygon is/was a burning fire, outside was no fire).  I 
wouldn't say it is more accurate than 20 to 50 meters on any edge, an "across a 
wide street" distance to be "off" is OK with me, considering this fire's size, 
but if a slight skew jiggles the whole thing into place better, feel free to 
nudge.  It's the tagging I'm interested in getting right, and perhaps wondering 
if or even that people enter gigantic fires that will significantly change 
landscape for some time into OSM, as I have done.  This will affect my local 
mapping, as a great much has burned.  Even after starting almost two weeks ago, 
as of 20 minutes ago this fire is 33% contained, with good, steady progress.  
These men and women are heroes.

To me, this is a significant polygon in my local mapping:  it is a "huge thing" 
that is a major feature on a map, especially right now.  I firmly believe it 
belongs in OSM for many reasons and want it tagged "correctly."  Yes, there are 
other maps that show this, I believe OSM should have these data, too, as this 
perimeter will affect much (in the real world) and much newer, updated mapping 
in OSM going forward.

Thank you for your suggestions,
SteveA
California
(safer now thanks to truly heroic efforts by firefighters, law enforcement and 
many others)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Import WestCOG building footprints in south-west Connecticut

[joe.sapletal]

I was going to look at the buildings too.  I’ve used a tool in ArcGIS to 
correct some pretty awful buildings, but I couldn’t download them either.If 
there is no hurry, I’d check in again with the contact on Monday.  It would be 
nice to have the buildings with addresses on them.

 

Joe

 

From: Yury Yatsynovich  
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2020 5:05 PM
To: Julien Lepiller 
Cc: impo...@openstreetmap.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Import WestCOG building footprints in 
south-west Connecticut

 

Hi Julien,

Unfortunately, I have limited knowledge on the data quality as I wasn't able to 
download it (the server returns error). I let the CT point of contact (Scott) 
know about the problem -- he mentioned in our communication that he forwarded 
the issue to the tech support team, but I haven't heard from them since then 
and I'm still unable to download it. 

 

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020, 4:57 PM Julien Lepiller mailto:o...@lepiller.eu> > wrote:

So, it's been a week since that last message. Do you think we should
import addresses and buildings at the same time? Should we import the
buildings first and care about addresses later?

Yury, what are your thoughts about the data source quality? Do you
think it's a good idea to import from WestCOG and maybe rely on CT data
for the rest of CT? I tried playing with the data and I didn't see any
difference between drawing the buildings from scratch and having to
simplify and correct CT's data.

Thanks!

Le Sat, 22 Aug 2020 19:36:23 -0400,
Martin Machyna mailto:mach...@gmail.com> > a écrit :

> Thank Julien for pushing this forward!
> 
> yeah, I tried to get addresses from here:
> http://geodata-ctmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/bfa7da83da384c2aa809882179369dc4_0/features/305004
> and add them on top of the westCOG buildings.
> 
> The data is a big mess because it's a join_table of like 30 different
> address databases. I lost a bit of motivation there, but I could have
> a look at it again.
> 
> Martin
> 
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 2:19 PM Julien Lepiller   >
> wrote:
> 
> > Le Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:30:02 -0400,
> > Yury Yatsynovich  >  > a écrit :
> >  
> > > Hi Julien,
> > > The following communication that I've had recently with a CT
> > > official might be of interest to you:
> > >
> > >  
> >
> > Oh, great! I think we already saw this data (I tried to contact them
> > too, but never got a reply :/). From what we saw (I think it was in
> > February?) the footprints have simplification issues (see
> > https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T029HV94T-FTDGDHXTM/image.png for
> > instance) where they are too detailed, not square enough, etc. Some
> > buildings also have holes in them, when there's none in the imagery.
> >
> > So I think it's too bad to be used directly, without a lot of manual
> > effort to simplify, square and redraw the shapes. However, the
> > address data is very interesting, so maybe we could extract from
> > it? Or we could use a separate dataset if they have addresses
> > separately.
> >
> > ___
> > Imports mailing list
> > impo...@openstreetmap.org  
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
> >  


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Import WestCOG building footprints in south-west Connecticut

[Yury Yatsynovich]

Hi Julien,
Unfortunately, I have limited knowledge on the data quality as I wasn't
able to download it (the server returns error). I let the CT point of
contact (Scott) know about the problem -- he mentioned in our communication
that he forwarded the issue to the tech support team, but I haven't heard
from them since then and I'm still unable to download it.

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020, 4:57 PM Julien Lepiller  wrote:

> So, it's been a week since that last message. Do you think we should
> import addresses and buildings at the same time? Should we import the
> buildings first and care about addresses later?
>
> Yury, what are your thoughts about the data source quality? Do you
> think it's a good idea to import from WestCOG and maybe rely on CT data
> for the rest of CT? I tried playing with the data and I didn't see any
> difference between drawing the buildings from scratch and having to
> simplify and correct CT's data.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Le Sat, 22 Aug 2020 19:36:23 -0400,
> Martin Machyna  a écrit :
>
> > Thank Julien for pushing this forward!
> >
> > yeah, I tried to get addresses from here:
> >
> http://geodata-ctmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/bfa7da83da384c2aa809882179369dc4_0/features/305004
> > and add them on top of the westCOG buildings.
> >
> > The data is a big mess because it's a join_table of like 30 different
> > address databases. I lost a bit of motivation there, but I could have
> > a look at it again.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 2:19 PM Julien Lepiller 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Le Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:30:02 -0400,
> > > Yury Yatsynovich  a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Hi Julien,
> > > > The following communication that I've had recently with a CT
> > > > official might be of interest to you:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, great! I think we already saw this data (I tried to contact them
> > > too, but never got a reply :/). From what we saw (I think it was in
> > > February?) the footprints have simplification issues (see
> > > https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T029HV94T-FTDGDHXTM/image.png for
> > > instance) where they are too detailed, not square enough, etc. Some
> > > buildings also have holes in them, when there's none in the imagery.
> > >
> > > So I think it's too bad to be used directly, without a lot of manual
> > > effort to simplify, square and redraw the shapes. However, the
> > > address data is very interesting, so maybe we could extract from
> > > it? Or we could use a separate dataset if they have addresses
> > > separately.
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Imports mailing list
> > > impo...@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
> > >
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Import WestCOG building footprints in south-west Connecticut

[Julien Lepiller]

So, it's been a week since that last message. Do you think we should
import addresses and buildings at the same time? Should we import the
buildings first and care about addresses later?

Yury, what are your thoughts about the data source quality? Do you
think it's a good idea to import from WestCOG and maybe rely on CT data
for the rest of CT? I tried playing with the data and I didn't see any
difference between drawing the buildings from scratch and having to
simplify and correct CT's data.

Thanks!

Le Sat, 22 Aug 2020 19:36:23 -0400,
Martin Machyna  a écrit :

> Thank Julien for pushing this forward!
> 
> yeah, I tried to get addresses from here:
> http://geodata-ctmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/bfa7da83da384c2aa809882179369dc4_0/features/305004
> and add them on top of the westCOG buildings.
> 
> The data is a big mess because it's a join_table of like 30 different
> address databases. I lost a bit of motivation there, but I could have
> a look at it again.
> 
> Martin
> 
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 2:19 PM Julien Lepiller 
> wrote:
> 
> > Le Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:30:02 -0400,
> > Yury Yatsynovich  a écrit :
> >  
> > > Hi Julien,
> > > The following communication that I've had recently with a CT
> > > official might be of interest to you:
> > >
> > >  
> >
> > Oh, great! I think we already saw this data (I tried to contact them
> > too, but never got a reply :/). From what we saw (I think it was in
> > February?) the footprints have simplification issues (see
> > https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T029HV94T-FTDGDHXTM/image.png for
> > instance) where they are too detailed, not square enough, etc. Some
> > buildings also have holes in them, when there's none in the imagery.
> >
> > So I think it's too bad to be used directly, without a lot of manual
> > effort to simplify, square and redraw the shapes. However, the
> > address data is very interesting, so maybe we could extract from
> > it? Or we could use a separate dataset if they have addresses
> > separately.
> >
> > ___
> > Imports mailing list
> > impo...@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
> >  


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us