Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Mar 2017, at 19:39, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> 
> I believe you are mistaken here.


you are of course right. (It would have worked for all cases I had in 
mind/mapped so far, but it won't work in general).

Insisting on the original definition isn't likely an option, is it? Thing is, 
the "new"(2012) version does not work at all in some cases. Imagine a building 
split in half, in the backside there are 4 residential floors, in the front 
there are 3 office floors (offices ~4m, housing ~3m). On top of both there's 
another 3 residential floors, these could be tagged:

building:part=apartments 
min_height=12
but you can't indicate the number of levels with building:levels 
for simple 3D rendering it would be sufficient to indicate the height but the 
levels are also interesting in itself)

"virtual" building levels, which appear in the current building:levels 
definition, don't exist. You cannot count them, they are not verifiable. We 
should not model like this.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Martin,

Am 09.03.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Tobias Knerr:
> Your proposed change would, therefore, make data mapped using these keys
> mostly useless due to the unresolvable ambiguity. In my opinion, that
> kind of cost is not worth it.

I oppose the proposed change for exactly the same reasons. Redefinitions
like this just cause confusion amongst mappers and data users. As a
consequence, mappers will focus on other topics than 3D mapping. Is that
your goal? I hope not.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part

[Tobias Knerr]

On 08.03.2017 18:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

building:levels - building:min_level < 0
yes: new
no: old


I believe you are mistaken here. Consider the following example:

building:levels = 2
building:min_level = 1

According to the Simple 3D Buildings standard, this means that there is 
a building part with one "real" level. According to your idea, there 
would be two "real" levels. And there's no way to tell which 
interpretation was intended by the mapper.


Your proposed change would, therefore, make data mapped using these keys 
mostly useless due to the unresolvable ambiguity. In my opinion, that 
kind of cost is not worth it.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-03-09 6:04 GMT+01:00 Eugene Alvin Villar :

> I'm not now commenting on whether the proposal is good or not, but other
> redefinition proposals have been shot down for numbers much less than the
> number given in the argument above.



Yes, it is not completely ignorable, but compare it to the amount of
building:part objects: 422 381 or building 221 520 339 or building:levels 8
190 936

one third of the building:min_level objects are buildings, the other 2
thirds are building:part objects. I would conclude from those numbers that
we are still relative at the beginning of mapping this kind of detail
(which I would expect to grow rapidly with a larger diffusion of 3d vector
maps).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> there are only 33 991 objects with a building:min_level tag now
>

I'm not now commenting on whether the proposal is good or not, but other
redefinition proposals have been shot down for numbers much less than the
number given in the argument above.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I propose to deprecate the current definition of building:levels which is:

OLD:

- building:min_level is the amount of levels of the underneath
building_part below the tagged building:part

- building:levels=building:min_level + amount of levels for this part

in favor of

NEW:

- building:min_level unchanged

- building:levels=amount of levels for this part


What do you think? We could migrate the existing building:levels with the
time or in one go.
I don't think it's too late for this, there are only 33 991 objects with a
building:min_level tag now, (the rest will not change), and you can easily
see if the indication is according to the old or the new scheme by looking
at the values:

building:levels - building:min_level < 0
yes: new
no: old

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging