Pierre looking at the Microsoft imports south of the border and their process is undoubtedly sensible.
I suggest waiting until we have got some movement on the current import rather than try to tackle to many things at once. Cheerio John On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 1:47 PM Pierre Béland, <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > Exprime tu simplement une opinion, ou as-tu vérifié les procédures > d'import incluant correction des données et validé la qualité des données > importées aux États-Unis ? Considères-tu la qualité des données dans la > base OSM aux États-Unis comparable à ce qui s'est fait au Canada l'an > dernier ? > > La qualité des données Microsoft peut sans doute varier selon divers > facteurs dont la qualité et précision des données aériennes utilisées. > > De mon côté, j'ai regardé du côté de Dallas, Texas. En consultant le > gestionnaire de tâches US, il est possible d'y repérer les tâches créées > pour cartographier des bâtiments. > > https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/contribute?difficulty=ALL&statuses=ARCHIVED&types=BUILDINGS > > Dans ces zones, j'ai constaté en général une bonne qualité des données. > Je ne connais pas les procédures utilisées, ni regardé le connu des > fichiers de données Microsoft pour ces zones, mais la tâche ci-dessous > montre un processus de validation où il était demandé d'orthogonaliser les > bâtiments. > https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/164#bottom > > Pierre > > > Le vendredi 17 janvier 2020 13 h 02 min 20 s UTC−5, john whelan < > [email protected]> a écrit : > > > > As stated before, I don't consider the Microsoft dataset being close to > the minimum quality requirements I would expect from any automated > building entry into OSM. > > Well yes that is one opinion but we do have a range of opinions in > OpenStreetMap and from the number of buildings that have already been > imported into OpenStreetMap from Microsoft, there seems to be a large > number in the US for example, it would appear there are those who disagree > with you which is not surprising given the number of mappers. > > To me the buildings are of more interest once they get enriched with more > tags and the place that happens is in OpenStreetMap. Streetcomplete I > think is either the most popular editor these days or very close to it. > You can't add tags if the buildings are not in OpenStreetMap. Yes you can > display the outlines by using the Microsoft data but that does not show > tags such as building type, building levels, etc etc. and streetcomplete is > a tool that can be used to introduce OpenStreetMap to many people. > > I think perhaps we should concentrate our efforts on the current import > for the moment but I suspect that some Microsoft buildings will start to be > imported in Canada even if they don't have an official import plan. > > Cheerio John > > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 12:12, Tim Elrick <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi John, > > As stated before, I don't consider the Microsoft dataset being close to > the minimum quality requirements I would expect from any automated > building entry into OSM. If you just want to display buildings, you can > download the MS dataset and use it right away - no need to import into > OSM. I think, the MS dataset has value as proof of concept and to count > the number of buildings in a given area (e.g. to estimate market size > for roofers, estimate number of persons living there for desaster > relief, etc.). I also think, when Microsoft feeds its algorithm with > higher resolution data than they did (I don't recall, but I think they > only used the regular Bing data) they will probably end up with building > footprints that will meet our/my quality requirements for import into > OSM one day. > > For me, the value of OSM is having accurate information in terms of tags > and geometry. Otherwise, we could join Wikimapia; they don't care too > much about geometry accuracy but emphasize on content/tags of objects. > Pretty interesting project, but different from OSM. > > Cheers, > Tim > > On 2020-01-17 10:40, john whelan wrote: > >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, <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[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
