Cool, i put the 'building=yes' back in service for both the 'unknown' and 'other' feature point types.
Good thing too; as i had a challenge trying to get the 'exclusion script' to work. And yup, i'll subscribe to that talk list (i'll try to keep quiet on that one) :-) cheers, Sam On 3/23/09, Richard Weait <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 20:05 -0400, Michel Gilbert wrote: >> 2009/3/23 Sam Vekemans <[email protected]> >> >> I have not yet received the answer from NRCan about if the >> location of the node is EXACTLY where the building actually >> is, or is it just shown in the general area. If it is the >> former, then this information can be taken into account. > > Sam, why should the building point location be EXACT? We know that all > data, regardless of source, will have a degree of precision depending on > many things. Buildings are worth having, in my opinion, even if only as > a point. > >> The position of buildings may be "exact" if the acquisition methods >> was from stereo-digitization. If it came from map scanning they may >> have been displaced for map representation purposes. My guess is 80% >> of the buildings in CanVec come from map scanning. > >> What i can do, and i presume that you all would agree, is to >> add this feature to the "not4osm" folder so then it could be >> used as an assistant for the person who is actually uploading >> the information. > > I disagree. Worth including in my opinion. Default renders may chose > to render them or not. Some future render may do "cool things" based on > the number of buildings / area. Who can predict future creativity? The > buildings exist, or existed at the time of survey. Worth knowing. > >> Following the new information I received from >> [email protected] (i have just forwarded the email to >> talk-ca) we may still want them for mapping purposes. > >> >> We can list them, then check with the [email protected] >> talk if they are part of the render feature. > > And even if the default renderers don't want point buildings, perhaps > the renderer at openstreetmap.ca will. Or YourCompany.com might make a > fortune offering point-building renderers. > >> For example, when the feature lists 9 or so different feature >> types, the general practice for both GeoBase & CanVec is to >> state "-1" unknown and "0" none ... i would suggest that >> these features be omitted from the import also. >> >> Any thoughts on that? > > Sam, I'm sure I don't know to what you refer here. Could you clarify > please? > >> Again it depends if the [email protected] talk confirm >> that no render is possible. If we really want them display we can ask >> them ? > > Even if the default mapnik, t...@h and others don't render point-buildings > we can adjust them for our own purposes. (We can also ask the > maintainers to add support for point buildings.) > > Best regards, > Richard > > _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
