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 example is here: https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=52.9755467&lon=-1.2013530&zoom=18 (I accidentally typed the house number into the building:levels tag).
Jerry On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 15:13, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote: > Try this site > <https://buildingheights.emu-analytics.net/?x=-2.0983833663121914&y=53.529861700711535&z=8.405213088272887>: > origin of building height data is Environment Agency LIDAR data under OGL > > Regards > > Brian > > On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 19:20, Neil Matthews <ndmatth...@plus.net> wrote: > >> 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 spate of strange edits around Aztec West -- with some >> 1-level mobile homes being labelled as 1.5 (presumably thought they were >> a "scaled" two storey house when satellite mapping). >> >> On a similar vein, what are acceptable data sources for building:height >> -- and how far should one ask for proof that these haven't come from a >> source that would be problematic to OpenStreetmap? >> >> Cheers, >> Neil >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
