On Feb 1, 2019, at 1:13 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So how would you tackle it?
>
> Adding buildings with JOSM and the buildings_tool is possible, I think Julia
> tried to whip up some interest with the 2020 project. Unfortunately
> mapathons using iD and new mappers for some reason don't work too well for
> buildings. They do work fine for adding tags though.
>
> I seem to recall March 2nd is some sort of student GIS day and we can expect
> something to happen in GEO/GIS week whenever it is. I'd prefer adding tags
> to existing outlines rather than having to clean up buildings added with iD.
Adding tags to buildings by students at a "student GIS day" (whether with iD or
not) is "one thing," and honestly shouldn't even be in this same thread
("Building Import update." ) Conflating the two is either mistaken,
disingenuous or both.
> If we go back in time to the Ottawa import and the licensing issues I seem to
> recall a Toronto mapper submitting the Toronto Open Data License to the legal
> working group which implies at least one Toronto OSM mapper was after the
> Toronto Open Data.
While it can be valuable to "look in the rear view mirror" (to learn from past
mistakes), I fail to see how this comment matters. Doing my best to stay on
point, my educated guess is there are MANY users who want to see "the five
provincial building datasets" (what we TRULY attempt to discuss here) enter
OSM. However, there appear to be questions about the data quality, with some
saying "skilled editors are able to do a decent job with these data, but not
without substantial post-data publication (now) improvements before the data
are uploaded." (This would be downloading a "square" on the Task Manager and
rather heavily improving the data, building by building. Yaro and Danny,
please chime in and agree or disagree. Should that be true, only
intermediate-to-advanced — i.e. rather skilled OSM editors with practice and
experience should "do" the importation of these data). Others say "these data
need wholesale algorithmic changes before they are good enough to be uploaded."
(As I've said, maybe "squaring" or "simplification," yet I and this mail-list
still do not know exactly where consensus lies there). There are likely other
opinions along and even outside of that spectrum, I simply do not know that.
But GETTING to know the answers to those questions really must be "next." We
appear to be hashing that out here and now. Much else (all else?) is, largely
speaking, noise, distraction and what Nate said, "red herring."
> My feeling at the moment is there is a suggestion that "cleaning" the data up
> then some sort of team approach in a particular area would be acceptable but
> how you put it together I'm not sure.
No, you do not appear to be sure, John. Yet, somehow, Canada will get there.
Either in talk-ca, the Import wiki, the wiki's Discussion tab ("Talk page") the
consensus of what to do with the data will EVENTUALLY emerge (fix 'em, scrap
'em, leave 'em alone and import 'em with great care...), then they will
(slowly, there are a LOT!) begin to be imported into OSM. Or not.
It is a maxim of good project management which is often unstated, yet now is
the time to say it: "Lead, follow or get out of the way."
SteveA
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
