At least it is an indication of interest. Thanks John
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 4:57 PM Darren Wiebe, <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm from rural Alberta close to Lloydminster. The building import is > something that interests me and would be useful in my area but I haven't > been very actively mapping over the last year or two. Hopefully there are > Alberta mappers on here who are much more active than I have been. > > Darren Wiebe > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:04 PM John Whelan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think my concerns are to do with the "black box" approach. Knowing >> your background I trust your work but others might not. >> >> On a technical side I get the impression that cites with buildings that >> are close to each other are problematical. I assume that small locations >> with a population of say under 125,000 this is an insignificant problem? >> >> The other issue is I'd like to either see buy in from Nate or at least >> some Toronto mappers to get an indication that something will happen at the >> end of the day as it is a fair chunk of Daniel's time to work out how do >> the preprocessing. >> >> I think some BC mappers expressed some doubts as well so perhaps they >> would like to think about if they are happy or would prefer BC to be >> outside of the import project and express their views. >> >> Out of interest if it does move ahead are we including the Microsoft data >> for areas where we do not have data from Stats Canada? If so we will need >> to amend the project plan. >> >> My personal view is realistically I think having building information >> even if its a meter or two out is better than not having the building >> outlines. >> >> What would be nice is if we could have some indication from places such >> as Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec excluding Montreal, Ontario >> excluding Toronto and the other provinces and territories whether they are >> happy with importing the buildings either from Stats or Microsoft. >> >> I seem to recall Keith is in Manitoba, so any views other than it wasn't >> present in the first release from Stats? >> >> Note to Alessandro this is just background stuff. >> >> Thanks >> >> Cheerio John >> >> Begin Daniel wrote on 2019-03-26 3:29 PM: >> >> Jarek, >> The area you proposed in quite interesting and will force me to look further >> at buildings with sharing edges, a concern Pierre also had. I'll be back >> soon with your area processed. >> Daniel >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Begin Daniel [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 14:34 >> To: Jarek Piórkowski; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import >> >> Jarek, >> Since it is a one-time process, I expect to be able to process the files if >> the community feels comfortable with it. In the meantime, people are welcome >> to send me the bounding box of an area they would like to examine. >> >> Daniel >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jarek Piórkowski [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 13:46 >> To: Begin Daniel; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import >> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 13:10, Begin Daniel <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> There is actually no standard “code” available since I use FME >> (www.safe.com). It is a proprietary ETL application and all operations are >> done using “transformers” (https://www.safe.com/transformers/). I can >> provide you with the workbench I developed (a bunch of linked transformers) >> but you need a license to run it. This is why I tried to describe the >> operations I run on the data in the wiki. >> >> As you did, people may send me coordinates (bounding box) of an area they >> know well. I’ll process the area and send the results back in OSM format. >> Please, be reasonable on the amount of data to process ;-) >> >> Thanks Daniel. Let me know how it looks then! >> >> Coming from an open-source background, the process is unusual to me, >> and I have questions about scalability - will you be able to process >> and provide updated data files for all of Canada then? - but if others >> are comfortable with it then I won't object. >> >> Some general thoughts regarding tooling as raised upthread: >> >> I was initially excited to see building footprints data as they help >> two quite distinct purposes: >> >> 1. they provide a mostly-automatic source of geometries for the >> millions of single-family houses that wouldn't be mapped in the next >> decade otherwise >> >> 2. they might provide a corrected and fairly accurate source of >> geometries in heavily-built-up areas, where GPS signal is not that >> reliable and it can be really difficult to get sufficiently accurate >> geometries from imagery, whether because it's not sufficiently >> high-resolution, two sets of imagery with conflicting offsets (Bing >> and Esri are the two best sets in Toronto, and they're off by about >> 1-2 m on north-south axis from each other - that's not something I can >> check with a consumer-grade GPS so I'm left guessing as to which is >> true), or non-vertical imagery (I can count the floors on supposedly >> top-down imagery in some cases). >> >> >From what I saw, imports in the GTHA initially focused on the first >> case, and I think the Tasking Manager setup was mostly sufficient for >> those - where there is nothing currently on the map, or a few simple >> 2D geometries, a 4 sq km area can feasibly be done in under an hour. >> >> However, as raised by others, I would really want the working squares >> in Old Toronto for example to be no more than 500 m x 500 m, or no >> more than 1 km x 1 km in St. Catharines. I would _love_ to have the >> geometries to manually compare and adjust the 3D buildings already >> existing in the area, but it will be much slower. >> >> --Jarek >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing >> [email protected]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing >> [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 >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
