Evaluating OSM Building Footprint Data Quality in Québec Province, Canada from 2018 to 2023: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OpenStreetMap (OSM) is among the most prominent Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) initiatives, aiming to create a freely accessible world map. Despite its success, the data quality of OSM remains variable. This study begins by identifying the quality metrics proposed by earlier research to assess the quality of OSM building footprints. It then evaluates the quality of OSM building data from 2018 and 2023 for five cities within Québec, Canada. The analysis reveals a significant quality improvement over time. In 2018, the completeness of OSM building footprints in the examined cities averaged around 5%, while by 2023, it had increased to approximately 35%. However, this improvement was not evenly distributed. For example, Shawinigan saw its completeness surge from 2% to 99%. The study also finds that OSM contributors were more likely to digitize larger buildings before smaller ones. Positional accuracy saw enhancement, with the average error shrinking from 3.7 m in 2018 to 2.3 m in 2023. The average distance measure suggests a modest increase in shape accuracy over the same period. Overall, while the quality of OSM building footprints has indeed improved, this study shows that the extent of the improvement varied significantly across different cities. Shawinigan experienced a substantial increase in data quality compared to its counterparts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".