|
I don't know if this is typically Belgian, but how to trace buildings in cities like the example below? What is the official method to handle things like this? Do I just trace the front area of the building, or also the building extensions/additions/later developments (which can be a real mess when they come together in the middle; as to see which area belongs to which building). I've seen both ways used, even in the same streets. How should I strive to solve this problem? Which way of tracing should I use? |
|
We are preparing a import for buildings in Flanders. This can still take a while before we start, as the software is not finished yet, and the administrative clearance is also not done. But for Wallonia there are no plans at this moment. IMHO, it's better to do map all the details the first time around. It's much harder to add the extensions when you did not do that immediately. I mapped a lot of buildings based on Bing in my neighborhood, but when AGIV imagery appeared, I had to redo a lot of them. This was not easy, especially because I wanted to keep the history of the building. It would have been easier to remove the old ones and start afresh. A block of houses mapped as a multipolygon in order to have a gap in the middle for the garden, is also something that causes more work than pleasure for the mappers that come after you, and want to map individual a houses. So pro for the outline: there is something and people know there are some buildings cons: it takes more time to improve later on |
I'd say "start with the general, visible outline, then come back to fill in the details". Check e.g. here: the buildings on the inside of the block are later additions - originally, someone just roughly mapped the street-facing parts. http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?commit=Hledat&query=history#map=18/50.07376/14.49183 Whichever way you choose, I don't think there's one that's The Only Correct One ;)