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

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.

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

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,

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

[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: -