2012/9/27 Pieren <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > <[email protected]> wrote: >> buildings should follow reality (which they apparently don't do at all >> in the cadastre version). > > How can you say that from an aerial imagery ? It is also possible that > the cadastre is outdated. Like any source of contribution, including > local survey.
You are right that I cannot be 100% sure from aerial imagery, but how probable would you think it is that they tore down the whole building complex and reconstructed it split into different volumes but inside the same total volume and shape? Would they have also reconstructed the sheds and anxilliary building parts (if the cadastre is outdated)? How probable are building divisions like in the cadastre version, where there are very narrow buildings without direct access to the street in building which is not particularly wide? From an architects point of view the building partitions don't look real, it would be really strange if they were like this, but you are right that I can't exclude they are really like this, hence the "apparently". cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
