I agree there are currently issues. It is an unstoppable trend, but it
would be good if there was better support and enforcing of "best
practices" so as to avoid loosing the ability to create proper 2D maps
in a quest to map every detail of 3D (or for that matter Indoor) buildings.
One thing I have posted about before on the OpenStreetMap Forum is that
it is paramount that users add proper building relations
(type=building), and group all the individual building:part elements in
there. Unfortunately, many people don't do this, even thought it is
written here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings.
But admittedly, the Wiki page could be a bit more clear and specific
about this.
More importantly though, the building relations should ALWAYS include a
building footprint, with role=outline added to it. The footprint can be
either a simple closed way, or if inner courts are present, preferably
be a multipolygon itself. The tags for the Simple 3D building as a whole
should preferably be on this outline, as the outline can then be used as
the source data for. If the tags are put on the type=building relation
(which may seem logical), it will become harder for (automated) data
users to get to the building tags.
If all Simple 3D buildings had proper role=outline features and building
relations to group the parts together, navigating the data on the
OpenStreetMap website or in OSM editors, would be fare less painful.
Finding the tags related to the building from a selected building:part
would just mean first moving up to the type=building relation, then down
to the role=outline feature. The links on the website would properly
guide you.
Also, the role=outline feature would serve as the source for creating
proper 2D building maps, allowing filtering out of the outlines, and
ignoring building:part (if desired).
Marco
With this mail I would like to open a general discussion, whether it
makes sense to add detailed 3D data into the current OSM db.
Living in a historic city with lots of tourists (many of them
mappers apparently), and lots of famous monuments, I am observing
for years now, that more and more detailed 3D objects get mapped.
While at first this seemed to be an interesting (and maybe logical)
development of some advanced mappers, to further push the limits of
mapping, more and more doubts have grown in the meantime whether
this kind of data is sustainable. Particularly because the raised
complexity leads to many errors, where people recreate already
existing objects or add localized name tags (or other tags) to
(building:)parts that are mainly there for geometric representation
in 3d, but are not the objects that actually represent the feature
(i.e. those that have most of the tags). Subsequently other mappers
find these objects (with some tags) and add more, and after a while
it can become plain chaos, until someone with a lot of time
dedicates herself to clean the mess up.
And honestly, I can understand this happening, these objects are
really complex and after something has been "3D-fied" it becomes at
least time consuming, if not completely confusing to make any simple
edit (like adding a new tag), because you have to search the "main
object" and understand where to put the tag.
I believe there is something conceptually wrong with adding those
3D-monsters into the common db and require from everybody to
understand them, without proper support or hierarchy on an API- or
editor-level.
(a side-issue is that many monuments like columns, obelisks and
similar are modelled as "building:parts", where there clearly is
nothing that is a building, but rather a massive stone)
Some examples (load them in your editor to understand what I am
talking about):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.90224/12.45784
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.90297/12.46658
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.89591/12.48466 (the
Trajan's column, a simple column consisting in osm of 9 concentric
objects! Find the right one, if all of them get their name rendered
at the same spot in the editor)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.89854/12.47695 (the
Pantheon, countless times there pop up duplicates as nodes)
What are your experiences?
Cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
<http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5875747&i=0>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Remove Ads
<http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=site_payment>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
