2017-03-09 6:04 GMT+01:00 Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com>: > 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
