Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

On 19/03/19 11:22, Andy Townsend wrote: On 18/03/2019 23:41, Warin wrote: For a chimney that is surrounded by a building  I used the shadow of the chimney vs the shadow of the building. That may be more feasible more of the time where you live than where I do! Point. :) Some satellite

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

On 18/03/2019 23:41, Warin wrote: For a chimney that is surrounded by a building  I used the shadow of the chimney vs the shadow of the building. That may be more feasible more of the time where you live than where I do! Best Regards, Andy ___

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

On 19/03/19 10:13, Andy Townsend wrote: On 18/03/2019 21:05, Neil Matthews wrote: P.S. Any suggestions  on how I can measure buildings "on-foot" greatly apreciated... If you can't get hold of one of these*: https://www.aols.org/archives/historical-artifacts?page=13 , and if you're after

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

On 18/03/2019 21:05, Neil Matthews wrote: P.S. Any suggestions  on how I can measure buildings "on-foot" greatly apreciated... If you can't get hold of one of these*: https://www.aols.org/archives/historical-artifacts?page=13 , and if you're after the heights of large buildings in a city

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

Thanks for the DEFRA link - has some potential :-) The first issue I was raising was that for convenience some (commercial) OSM mappers were using a value like 0.75 per building level (or something similar) so that their rendering software could deal directly with OSM data without post-processing

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

How very useful; had completely forgotten about this! However, I don't think that is Neil's issue, which is that building:levels should have integer values (or just possibly steps of a half). Some 3D renders make assumptions about what a default height for a single storey (level) will be. A good

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

Try this site : origin of building height data is Environment Agency LIDAR data under OGL Regards Brian On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 19:20, Neil Matthews wrote: > Anyone mapping in Manchester

[Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

Anyone mapping in Manchester might want to take a look for strange fractional building:levels. It's possible that some commercial editors found that they got better results with open source 3D renderers by using ~0.75 per building level, rather than the documented value of 1. We recently had a