The Stats Canada data comes from the municipalities. Unfortunately
there are over 3,000 in Canada so yes ideally each would be treated
separately in reality each municipality doesn't have a group of skilled
OSM mappers who are capable of setting up an import plan and doing the
work although there is nothing to stop them doing so.
Cheerio John
keith hartley wrote on 2019-03-27 12:00 AM:
Hi All,
I like the idea of imports, and think there's a lot of value of batch
importing - however we need to run a QA/AC for each. For Manitoba I
think the challenge is getting municipalities to sign on, and move
their data to the canadian open data portal (that is, if they have
data or any geo-spatial information to give ) some information is on
the provincial level, but most of that has already been added to OSM
(IE Brandon, Selkirk) or have been built.
Reviewing some of the Microsoft data, I see a lot of quirks! - IF
using it it's handy to identify buildings, but would REALLY have to
watch and review if importing any of it to osm. I'm not sure about the
rest of canada, but there's "swamp buildings" that some of my
collegues have dubbed 1/3 mile polygons in a featureless field. Some
of the more complex downtown buildings seem pretty broken, but the
data does seem to be decent at covering suburban areas.
TL/DR version:
I'd be comfortable importing muni stuff (dependent on quality) , but
the Bing footprints would have to be reviewed, nearly on a building by
building level.
Keith
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM john whelan <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
At least it is an indication of interest.
Thanks John
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 4:57 PM Darren Wiebe, <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 14:34
To: Jarek Piórkowski;[email protected]
<mailto:[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]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 13:46
To: Begin Daniel;[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 13:10, Begin Daniel<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
There is actually no standard “code” available since I use FME
(www.safe.com <http://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 list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
