>first, to add missing buildings (if it were just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft dataset)
I can't resist. Does this infer that for parts of the country without Stat Can data we are happy to import Microsoft dataset buildings as is? Or would we wish to wait until we have some more imports done before looking at preprocessing them in some way first. Thanks John On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:11 PM Tim Elrick, <o...@elrick.de> wrote: > I would assume in most cases the imported building footprint will be > more precise than existing data. For me, this would be a reason to > replace already existing objects. However, I think this is a case by > case decision. However, I think it is important to keep tags and history > of buildings already existent in OSM. This is how I would read/interpret > the import guideline stated by Nate: "If you are importing data where > there is already some data in OSM, then *you need to combine this data* > in an appropriate way or suppress the import of features with overlap > with existing data." (emphasis added by me) > > However, that just means, the import, hence, is nothing easy and could > not be achieve quickly, I would assume. One way of making sure that this > is dealt with diligently, would be setting the tasking manager to > 'experienced mappers only'. We would have to ask James, who is in charge > of the Canada Tasking Manager, how to edit/set up the 'experienced > mapper role' in the TM. It might be possible to feed in a list of > mappers manually or to set a threshold of objects/changesets that they > must have entered in OSM. However, maybe only mappers who feel > experienced enough to handle the import would contribute to the TM > project anyway and we let everyone judge on their own and don't restrict > access. > > If we were to separate the new and overlapping buildings, I am also > leaning towards Daniel's assessment. I would be afraid to cause more > issues than by doing it all at once (with a reasonable tile size, of > course). > > In the end, the main point of importing this specific dataset fulfils > two purposes, in my opinion: first, to add missing buildings (if it were > just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft > dataset), second, to get the best geospatial representation possible in > our OSM database. That means, we defer from using the Microsoft dataset > and use the much higher quality data from the ODB. This also means that > we should replace already existing buildings (yet keeping tags and > history) wherever the ODB footprint is more precise than the existing one. > > Just my two cents here, > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
