In comparison to Bing even Picasso wins ;-) On 5 January 2015 at 15:30, Glenn Plas <gl...@byte-consult.be> wrote:
> In my experience, the outlines and building shapes I've seen in GRB are > like 10 times better than all the work that exists using bing and other > sources. > > A one on one copy would be silly, but if you bring it all together, > agiv/grb and osm data, it helps to make sense of what you are looking > at. Also it is conclusive usually when new buildings replace older. > It's the best source, I don't really care if the house isn't exactly as-is. > > The housenumber inports will take years, but it's fine as it is as tons > of intelligent choices and conclusions, mistakes and other uglynes needs > to be fixed too. And it all helps, if you overlay them with some > transparacy adding GRB would be an awesome tool. > > I've been doing housenumer entries for weeks now, grb layer would > defenitely be of good help. But never a dumb copy. > > Glenn > > On 05-01-15 15:05, Gilbert Hersschens wrote: > > Guys, > > > > Don't get overly exited about the building shapes. The quality of those > > shapes is quite variable. For free standing houses they are OK - in some > > cases even excellent, but for urban areas they are not very useful, > > certainly not as a source for import. I have been using those shapes for > > quite a while for comparison in cases where severe projection distortion > > and strong shadows gave me a hard time to figure out the shape of a > > particular building and in many cases the shapes in GRB were not better > > or even worse than my own "guesstimation". > > They're OK for "second opinions" but I would never use a tool to import > > those shapes. > > Just my 2 cents. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
