On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 08:36:15AM +0100, Cruz Enrique Borges wrote: > > Usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. While you may find it interesting > > to have all this 3D information, I'd find it much more useful to have > > building > > outlines in OSM that are complete. The single building parts make not much > > sense for anything but 3D rendering. > > For us is a _vital_ information. We are making models of the urban sprawl of > several cities and the hight of a building give us a lot of information > about the type and the number of person who can live in that building.
It is exactly this kind of analysis that you make unnecessarily difficult. Take Paul's example http://maps.paulnorman.ca/imports/review/cigarral/building.png >From the aerial images it looks like 2, maybe 3 free-standing houses for a single family. It is very difficult to determine that from the data you imported because the houses consist of 3 to 5 separate building ways all of them tagged in exactly the same manner. You will need to do a complicated geometric analysis and add a lot of guess work to determine the actual number of houses. Note that I am not against adding 3D information to the buildings, I do object to splitting buildings into dozens of small parts that in reality are just some architectural decoration. OSM is supposed to be a map, a minimal level of abstraction is necessary to make the data usable. > > And I suspect that they are going to > > give you a big headache once you get around to mapping addresses. > > I don't think so. The address is already in the building or in the parcel > (it's an > step of the import process). Naturally. Sarah _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
