+1 From: Nate Wessel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 08:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import update
John, IMO, this is a red herring and I think you must recognize that to at least some degree. Just like no one suggested we do 3700 import plans, no on has suggested that we not add buildings to OSM. The question is how, and if that "how" in part is an import, then what data, at what speed, by who, etc? We're not debating between "import" and "nothing" here. There were tens of thousands of carefully hand-mapped buildings in Toronto before you and a couple others rode in and quietly changed everything in the course of a week. I'd like to point out to you the interesting case of Kenton County Kentucky: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/361564 Go ahead and zoom in and take a good look at that data. Poke around the rest of Northern Kentucky too while you're at it. Notice how good not only the building data is, but landuses, named places, etc. The only substantial import this area has ever seen is the TIGER road import of about a decade ago. By the time we started our Hamilton County building import (just north of the river), there were more than 150,000 buildings added by hand in the region already. I'm not saying this is the way Toronto/Canada needs to develop, but don't imply that it's impossible - it isn't. Cheers, Nate Wessel Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning NateWessel.com<http://natewessel.com> On 2/1/19 7:35 AM, john whelan wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=arthur%20mark%20drive%20port%20hope%20ontario#map=17/43.96262/-78.27069 https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.9631101,-78.2732195,17.25z https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH3 Port Hope Ontario is relatively obscure yet both Bing and google have buildings and neither company would spend the money dropping them in unless they saw a demand. A small sample but I'm sure that others are quite capable of looking locally for themselves. I'm a shades of grey person so to me there is no absolute need to have buildings in OpenStreetMap and I think different end users have different expectations. I seem to recall osmand has a street only map which takes up less room on the device. It's perfectly adequate for some users. I can make a case for both having them and not having any. On the not having any way up there would be the buildings added by inexperienced mappers using iD often in HOT projects. There are duplicates, strange shapes that bare no relation to any imagery, and city blocks marked as a single building. On the having them side would be where can I get a coffee and wifi? There are many users of the map who would like to see buildings or more importantly have building information available in an electronic form. For Ottawa I think I can safely say the local mappers are happy with the imported buildings. In OpenStreetMap there will always be a range of points of view. As you say it is for the local mappers to decide what they would like to do. In this case is it difficult to define the local mappers. Cheerio John _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
