At the end of the day one would hope we are a community. We are a large
group with divergent opinions and to be honest there is a great deal of
interest in non-mappers in this sort of data.
For example building data is being used in Tanzania to work out the
optimal areas for group solar panels. It can be used for many other
things which may not be immediately apparent to a traditional paper
based mapper.
With both the Stats Can released data and the Microsoft released data
floating around some data is going to creep in anyway.
At the moment we have Tim taking responsibility for Montreal.
There seems to be a number of divergent views in Toronto so I think they
should sit down and see if they can come to some sort of agreement.
We have Pierre and Nate who would appear to have different standards of
what is acceptable to other mappers. We have at least half a dozen
mappers who support the import, shown by their imports. I can probably
find a few more mappers who support the import if it comes to a simple vote.
I would suggest we try to best manage the process. If that means the
imported data is verified by another mapper I think that can be arranged.
Cheerio John
Yaro Shkvorets wrote on 2019-03-15 11:22 AM:
As an experienced local Ontario and Quebec mapper I don't see any
major problems with Stats Can building quality. It's detailed and
recent, it's the best dataset we could ever possibly get and it's far
superior to Microsoft quality. Having many buildings with "almost
square angles" in this dataset is not an issue as vast majority of
such deviations cannot be seen with a naked eye. Unfortunately any
orthogonalization algorithms will do more harm than good in such
cases. Mapping for the Validator, just like mapping for the Renderer
is a wrong way to map.
Issues were raised, issues were addressed in the import plan. If there
are any problems with some mappers violating any specific import plan
rules such issues need to be pointed out so they can adjust their
workflow.
My 2 cents.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:55 AM Nate Wessel <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I just reported this to the data working group, in case you
haven't already. Hopefully they will step in!
Cheers,
Nate Wessel
Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban
Planning
NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com>
On 3/15/19 10:30 AM, Pierre Béland wrote:
Réponse immédiate avec refus de discussion de la part de
DannyMcD_imports. Celui-ci indique qu'il prévoit continuer l'import.
voir https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67686901
There was a discussion, issues were raised, the problems (to the
extent that they existed at all) have been addressed. I plan to
continue importing, unless a *specific* valid issue is raised.
Please do not contact me again unless you have such an issue.
La prochaine étape est je pense de contacter le Data Working Group.
Pierre
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
--
Best Regards,
Yaro Shkvorets
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
--
Sent from Postbox
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
