Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part
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
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
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
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
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
Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. März 2017 um 18:32 Uhr > Von: "Martin Koppenhoefer" > An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > Betreff: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of > building:levels > > NEW: > > - building:min_level unchanged > > - building:levels=amount of levels for this part I support this proposal, although I guess that tag-voting by mailing list will reach even less people than doing it in the wiki. What we'd actually need is some kind of feed to inform mappers while mapping (i.e. while using an editor), but it would need some intelligence to sort messages relevant to the field you're working on. I.e. when mapper X is not mapping buildings he/she will be less inclined/qualified to vote on building related tags. However, sorting messages like this may also raise privacy / big brother issues that we will want to avoid. Because sorting messages like this essentially means an algorithm will need to look at individual contributions to do some kind of basic profiling. This sounds scary (and it is), but has some tempting, undeniable benefits. The project would need to offer more protection and anonymity to user accounts before advertising such features as being useful. -> After all, a case in the news where osm mapping led to personal disadvantage could lead to massive loss of man power and trust in the project. So while this may sound convenient, it may be too hard of a task to do for a free project. (In part, some of these issues may also apply to any scheme of a more direct democracy.) Greetings ___ 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
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