On Jan 31, 2019, at 5:47 PM, john whelan <[email protected]> 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 any sources to cite for this? Bing users? Google Maps users? OSM users? Who, exactly is "expecting" this and how do you know this? What matters here and now is the OSM community's acceptance of the quality of these data. Is Canada able to MAKE such a determination? I think so. > There is a case that says to keep up with the competitors we really ought to > have buildings. John, I believe you are the first to ever assert "we ought to have buildings" I've ever seen in OSM. What "case" are you talking about? > I think someone else has commented that parts of the Microsoft building > outline from scanned images in the US is problematic. Well, then say so. Say who. Say when. Say where. Say what you mean by "problematic." Let us (the OSM community) reflect on these comments. Let us (the OSM community) make our own determinations whether this is or isn't "problematic." Those issues are a completely separate issue from OSM, although there might be overlap, I simply don't know, as you haven't given us any data, simply your opinion. I'd like to know, but I can't, given what you have offered. > So given the results in Ottawa are comparable to Ontario and in my opinion > Ottawa is acceptable then I think the rest is also acceptable. OK: one vote in the fog of consensus. I have very little data to go on, and I'm not completely certain why, but it is an assertion of an OSM volunteer saying "then I think..." something. > Certainly Kingston where not all building angles were right angles weren't > noticeable to me by eye or perhaps my eyesight is just getting worse with age. Canada (and OSM) either agrees its building data for the five provincial datasets are OK, or Canada (and OSM) don't. As I've heard many here (I don't need to cite them, these cite themselves) say "I don't" or "we don't" (think the datasets are OK), the next things to say are "Well, they seem fixable with some algorithmic/programatic massaging, so, how do we fix them?" Or, "OK, here's how we're going to fix them." (Simplify the nodes, make them have 90º angles, whatever). This doesn't seem like it's an impossible finish line to cross, though I do see at least one person running in detours going nowhere. In short: "what's wrong with these data, how might they get fixed?" (Then they might get imported). It doesn't seem to me to be a whole lot more complicated a discussion than that. SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
