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

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to