I could serve the output using the microdataservice and the osncanada task manager(multiple tasks)
https://github.com/osmottawa/micro-data-service On Mon., Mar. 4, 2019, 7:16 p.m. Begin Daniel, <[email protected]> wrote: > Tim, > > I have plenty of free time and I am interested in this import. I am about > to complete a pre-processing tool that seems to “orthogonalize” building > footprints pretty well using FME (safe software). I plan to present/discuss > its functionalities next week on this list (vertex filtering, ensuring > right angles, sorting building according to processing results, etc.). I > have not examined how to break up building blocks into single units yet but > I am interested to include it in the pre-processing tool if it is possible. > > > > Daniel > > > > *From:* Tim Elrick [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, March 02, 2019 19:58 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Microsoft has released its building outlines for > Canada > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > As for Montreal: We will create an import plan on the wiki as soon as we > have expanded the discussion about the Montreal import from our local > face-to-face group to the Montreal OSM list and agreed on importing. Before > we do this, we wanted to test the feasibility of the pre-processing first, > as it involves quite some postgis coding to break up the building blocks > into single buildings. Only thereafter, we will suggest an import (or not), > depending on the feasibility of extracting single buildings. Otherwise we > will follow the hand-drawn approach as usual (and as it is done on a daily > basis at the moment by a couple of OSMappers). > > > > The Microsoft data set might still be useful for remote areas. Let's > explore this altogether. > > > > Cheers, > > Tim > > > > > On 2019-03-02 19:17, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > > On Mar 2, 2019, at 3:47 PM, John Whelan <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Two years ago a group of Toronto mappers submitted the City of Toronto Open > Data license to the LWG to see if it was acceptable. I assume they meant to > import things such as building outlines. I also assumed as I think others > did that this meant Toronto mappers were happy to import the City of > Toronto's data especially as it was discussed on talk-ca first. > > Historical info is appreciated for context, however, the LWG found > Canada-wide city-by-city submissions for ODbL-compliance burdensome, given > LWG's limited bandwidth. Assuming about events in the past is unhelpful, > first because it is assuming (seldom helpful) and second, these events are in > the past. How Toronto imported (building) data can't really help us first > understand and second improve from what we learn until we know what we > learned. That isn't presented here, but it could be. > > > > More recently Nate who currently lives in Toronto feels that this should be > discussed once more in Toronto to work out what is desired etc. > > I agree with Nate. Perhaps first in Toronto, perhaps wider in talk-ca. > "Once more" seems limiting, though it's possible it could suffice. > > > > Tim I think is organising Montreal open data import. > > Please consider adding this (and links to user: wiki or Talk pages) to the > active Import wiki. Generate communication using our media! > > > > I note that Nate and Tim have different ideas about what should be imported. > One is happy with bay windows and I think the other feels they should be > removed. > > More discussion often yields consensus, especially as it "goes wide" (or as > wide as is practical). > > > > We also have Pierre who is unhappy because the imported building outlines > available have too many corners that are not right angles. > > More discussion often yields consensus. > > > > The local Ottawa mappers are content with their Open Data import and find the > data quality acceptable even though Pierre has expressed reservations about > it. > > More discussion often yields consensus. Wide area (large cities, > province-wide, nationwide) imports are not easy to achieve consensus but can > often reach something approaching one as data are entered, not liked, > improved, liked better, et cetera. These are often an interactive, iterative > process. > > > > Someone in Manitoba? mentioned there were no building outlines released for > Manitoba? I apologise if I have the province name wrong. > > It is spelled correctly. I am not Canadian and I know that; it isn't hard to > spell-check Manitoba. > > > > So we have a mixture of expectations which is only to be expected in a large > group. > > More discussion often yields consensus. It might be part "mixture of > expectations" but I'm sure that everyone will agree that "high quality data > entering OSM" is expected. What can be difficult is "what do we mean by high > quality?" (in addition to establishing and communicating clear goals for the > importation of the data). > > > > Microsoft's Open Data provides another source of Open Data which might meet > Pierre's data quality expectations. They may meet Nate's. All provinces and > Territories now have Open Data building outlines available. > > OK, thanks for the clarification that a "union" of these datasets (Stats > Canada-produced building data + Microsoft-produced building data) provide an > "all provinces and Territories dataset." That truly is helpful as it makes > it clear that "if Set A doesn't have your province's or Territory's building > data, Set B will." > > > > Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon have populations of around 35,000 > people. Realistically I don't think they have a group of local OSM mappers. > > Please don't "write them off" so easily. Not only does it seem "not nice," > it may not be true. A better approach may be to actively develop community > there, difficult as that might seem. I believe there is usually Internet > available there in the villages (sometimes via clever and state-of-the-art > methodologies) and it may be as simple as "shaking the trees" of the right > people, then "they'll take it from there." > > > > Essentially the problem now we no longer have a Canada wide consensus on what > is acceptable > > More discussion often yields consensus. > > > > ...appears to be how do you identify local mappers across Canada and how far > away can a "local" mapper be to be considered local since it is the local > mappers who make the decision about what is acceptable and I think it is they > who have to drive the import process. > > There are no such "hard and fast" rules as this. I think you're on the right > track that "hinterland" (I do not mean that disparagingly, rather more like > "far away from others") OSM volunteers "drive the import process," so I again > encourage you and others to "better develop" this community and let them, > teach them, encourage them to "do what they will." > > > > I'm sure if a local group would like to contact me we can find resources to > assist them if required. > > Excellent that you volunteer to be a "point person." While it's important > that people "step up" like that, wider, open communication (here in talk-ca, > the wiki page, the wiki's Discussion tab / talk page...) is also to be > encouraged. In short, you can't cast the net too wide, so be broad in the > reach to do so. De-centralize while developing both breadth and width (the > whole country, at province-wide and city/vllage-wide levels) as well as > "experts/consultants who are available" to answer questions and provide > directional guidance and technical assistance. Good luck! > > > > SteveA > > California > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-ca mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
