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?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=942%20Bridle%20Path%20Crescent%20kingston#map=19/44.25311/-76.59308 Are we expecting too high a standard? Cheerio John On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 21:54, Pierre Béland via Talk-ca < talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > 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 > expérience en République démocratique du Congo depuis l'an dernier, Kisenso > et récemment Butembo, a montré qu'a partir de ces diagostics, la validation > / correction si nécessaire des polygones permettait de réduire fortement > les ratios, et ce sous les 3% des bâtiments. > > Je pense aussi qu'il faut prendre le temps de corriger les données qui > risque de ne pas être modifiées par la suite. > > > > Pierre > > > Le samedi 26 janvier 2019 21 h 06 min 39 s HNE, Nate Wessel < > bike...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > 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. Rushing > ahead can only lead to hurt feelings, angry emails, and extra work for > everyone. Given how much editing goes on in the areas I know, many of these > imported buildings might not be touched again for another decade - can't we > make them right the first time? > > I think Pierre is on the right track here with his thoughtful analysis of > the buildings that have been imported so far - this is the kind of stuff > that I'm talking about when I say we need some validation. Some questions > that I'd like to see answered (Pierre, when you have some more time!): just > how many buildings imported so far are not orthogonal, but seem like they > should be? What percentage of buildings would benefit from simplification, > and is the problem worse/better in some areas compared to others? > > I actually don't think the problem is technically difficult to solve - we > just have to understand the nature and extent off the problem before we > rush to solutions. That's the point of validation - understanding what the > problems are. > > Best, > Nate Wessel > Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning > NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com> > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca