Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Releases 125M Building Footprints in the US as Open Data

blogs.bing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Microsoft Releases 125M Building Footprints in the US as Open Data

#21

Post by mark_edward »

cabaalis wrote: post #17
tomarr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does this size argument arrive from because it comes up consistently on USA v elsewhere arguments? 95th percentile densities are no more than europe. The population of USA is more than 30x Finland and we are talking about laser scanning (by EPA or equivalent)

The United States is comprised of literally thousands of sovereign, independent governments. There are even independent limits on what rules these governments can impose upon each other. It is not a "subordinate" type of situation. That's why the size argument comes into play so often. It's not really a landmass or even population argument as much as is it a complexity argument.

People like to say that, but in practice it's not true and hasn't been for over a century.

Re: Microsoft Releases 125M Building Footprints in the US as Open Data

#22

Post by dvdhnt »

mark_edward wrote: post #21
cabaalis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States is comprised of literally thousands of sovereign, independent governments. There are even independent limits on what rules these governments can impose upon each other. It is not a "subordinate" type of situation. That's why the size argument comes into play so often. It's not really a landmass or even population argument as much as is it a complexity argument.

People like to say that, but in practice it's not true and hasn't been for over a century.

Yep. As an example, higher level governments will attach stipulations to grants or other types of funding in order to “encourage” lower governments to do as they’d like them to. Our tax system is such that this almost always works.

Re: Microsoft Releases 125M Building Footprints in the US as Open Data

#23

Post by BurritoAlPastor »

mark_edward wrote: post #21
cabaalis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States is comprised of literally thousands of sovereign, independent governments. There are even independent limits on what rules these governments can impose upon each other. It is not a "subordinate" type of situation. That's why the size argument comes into play so often. It's not really a landmass or even population argument as much as is it a complexity argument.

People like to say that, but in practice it's not true and hasn't been for over a century.

I sadly agree that federalism is de facto dead as a framework of policy and ideology. But as a legal and bureaucratic infrastructure, it has quite refused to die, for better or for worse. City, county, and state governments still do their thing, and anybody dealing with property, construction, zoning, etc in any capacity will still need to negotiate through each of those layers separately.

Re: Microsoft Releases 125M Building Footprints in the US as Open Data

#24

Post by robohamburger »

mark_edward wrote: post #21
cabaalis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States is comprised of literally thousands of sovereign, independent governments. There are even independent limits on what rules these governments can impose upon each other. It is not a "subordinate" type of situation. That's why the size argument comes into play so often. It's not really a landmass or even population argument as much as is it a complexity argument.

People like to say that, but in practice it's not true and hasn't been for over a century.

I know building permits do seem to work like this in the US.

There is probably a separate db (if its even a db) for each county. It is very much a data cleaning nightmare from my limited experience.

Re: Microsoft Releases 125M Building Footprints in the US as Open Data

#25

Post by ebikelaw »

doikor wrote: post #3

I don't understand why this is needed. Here in Finland the government just gave this info out for free to anyone (CC 4.0). They have all the information anyway because they have need for it due to planning/building permits, defense, etc. The data is very accurate (for example I can zoom into my parents cottage and see the out house on it). Later on they used laser scanning from planes to scan the whole country for ve…

There are Finland-sized entities within the USA that also do this. For example Los Angeles County, twice as large as Finland.

When you are pondering the question of why all USA is not as integrated as Finland, ask yourself also why Finland is not tightly integrated with Croatia. It is the same reason.

Re: Microsoft Releases 125M Building Footprints in the US as Open Data

#26

Post by [deleted] »

rcdmd wrote: post #6
doikor wrote: post #3

I don't understand why this is needed. Here in Finland the government just gave this info out for free to anyone (CC 4.0). They have all the information anyway because they have need for it due to planning/building permits, defense, etc. The data is very accurate (for example I can zoom into my parents cottage and see the out house on it). Later on they used laser scanning from planes to scan the whole country for ve…

The USA is about 30x Finland's size by landarea and building data is primarily stored at the county or equivalent level of government (3000 of those). Imagine munging data from 3000 different counties, each with their own standards and systems of recording.

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft Releases 125M Building Footprints in the US as Open Data

#27

Post by cmiles74 »

mark_edward wrote: post #21
cabaalis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States is comprised of literally thousands of sovereign, independent governments. There are even independent limits on what rules these governments can impose upon each other. It is not a "subordinate" type of situation. That's why the size argument comes into play so often. It's not really a landmass or even population argument as much as is it a complexity argument.

People like to say that, but in practice it's not true and hasn't been for over a century.

I have to disagree. For sure, there is a lot stuff that is centralized at the federal level, but there is still a great deal of data managed at the county municipal level and there is a wide variety in how this data is managed (or not managed) and what format it is in. In the town where I live, they looked up my birth record (in order to provide me with an official birth certificate) in a large bound book. Most permits for construction are managed (at least in part) by the town, who knows where that data is stored. Hopefully most of it is submitted up to the state level.

Re: Microsoft Releases 125M Building Footprints in the US as Open Data

#28

Post by toast0 »

endorphone wrote: post #7
rcdmd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA is about 30x Finland's size by landarea and building data is primarily stored at the county or equivalent level of government (3000 of those). Imagine munging data from 3000 different counties, each with their own standards and systems of recording.

It should be trivial. It should be standardized. It is absolutely bizarre that we need to rely upon commercial companies to map things like streets and buildings when this is very accurately tracked by government. In an ideal world OSM data grids could be delegated to the appropriate governments, where it could have perfect precision with changes, street closures, one ways, redirects, etc.

This is sometimes accurately tracked by some government, but there are thousands of governments in this country. Getting thousands of organizations to a standard is pretty hard when they don't get a concrete benefit from it. At the same time, the federal government has no business knowing the shape of my buildings, thank you very much.

Re: Microsoft Releases 125M Building Footprints in the US as Open Data

#29

Post by reaperducer »

mark_edward wrote: post #21
cabaalis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States is comprised of literally thousands of sovereign, independent governments. There are even independent limits on what rules these governments can impose upon each other. It is not a "subordinate" type of situation. That's why the size argument comes into play so often. It's not really a landmass or even population argument as much as is it a complexity argument.

People like to say that, but in practice it's not true and hasn't been for over a century.

People like to say that, but in practice it's not true and hasn't been for over a century.

It depends on the topic. When it comes to things like interstate commerce, you are correct -- the states don't each have treaties with each other.

But when it comes to other things, like education, that's very much a local function. The feds set minimum best practices (enforced by the threat of removing funding), but it's up to the tens of thousands of local school districts to decide what to teach their children.

Some of those local school districts are huge, on the order of 10's of thousands of students. Others can be as small as 15 or 20 students, or even one individual school.

When it comes to the topic at hand -- GIS information -- It is pretty much a county situation. There are numerous competing GIS standards and products, and each county or municipality chooses the software that works for its needs, and budget.

So, yes, there is creeping federalism in the United States. But claiming "it's not true and hasn't been for over a century" shows a lack of understanding of local civics.

Re: Microsoft Releases 125M Building Footprints in the US as Open Data

#30

Post by reaperducer »

endorphone wrote: post #7
rcdmd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA is about 30x Finland's size by landarea and building data is primarily stored at the county or equivalent level of government (3000 of those). Imagine munging data from 3000 different counties, each with their own standards and systems of recording.

It should be trivial. It should be standardized. It is absolutely bizarre that we need to rely upon commercial companies to map things like streets and buildings when this is very accurately tracked by government. In an ideal world OSM data grids could be delegated to the appropriate governments, where it could have perfect precision with changes, street closures, one ways, redirects, etc.

It should be trivial. It should be standardized.

Your use of the word "trivial" indicates you've never worked on complex GIS systems.

Whether it should be standardized is a matter of debate. Currently, each county or state or municipality uses the software and standard that suits its needs, and more importantly -- it's budget.

The GIS needs of New York City are not the same as the GIS needs of Saint George, Utah. Saint George doesn't need skyscraper functions, and New York doesn't want to measure airports on top of mesas.

The real world is messy, and so is pretty much every single GIS deployment. The real world doesn't digitize well.

Post reply on HN