I would say that a 2d representation of a 3d building should be its 2d
bounding polygon, i.e. its projection onto the ground. This is what you
see from vertically overhead (for above-ground buildings, and leaving
out effects of parallax for the moment). So in this case it would show
the straight-line edges of the gable and not the curved line of the wall
at ground level.
If we were to map strictly only the situation at ground level, buildings
which extend across roads would have to lose their "bridge" part which
is bound to meet with objections. Underground buildings would disappear
entirely.
Colin
On 16/04/2011 21:19, andrew wrote:
Many houses in the London suburbs and elsewhere have polygonal or curved bays
with square-ended gables above them. A typical example is:
http://geographyphotos.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Ipswich/G0000r5HlqvIzvDA/I0000AeFpmg6tFec
Should we be mapping the outline of the gable because it is the greatest extent
of the building, the bay because it is the important bit or a straight line
because the bay and gable are too small to map sensibly?
--
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
