Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2017, at 00:55, marc marc wrote: > > IMHO it is only one building that rest on the ground > including what you consider as separate buildings. here's an example, it's from 2001 in the port of Rotterdam and called parasite: https://marialuisatavano94.files.wordp

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

Le 23. 08. 17 à 00:25, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > On 19. Aug 2017, at 10:16, marc marc wrote: >>> and minus the building:min_level. >> no. min_level is a 3D feature. >> the level of a building as a whole doesn't take care of min_level. >> A building as a whole can not begin at level 2. >> A b

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

sent from a phone > On 19. Aug 2017, at 17:59, Javier Sánchez Portero > wrote: > > Would any one support a proposal for a new tag building:part:levels=* to > separate the levels of the building from the part as in this case: > > way1 {building=residential, building:part=yes, building:levels

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

sent from a phone On 19. Aug 2017, at 10:16, marc marc wrote: >> and minus the building:min_level. > no. min_level is a 3D feature. > the level of a building as a whole doesn't take care of min_level. > A building as a whole can not begin at level 2. > A building as a whole must rest on the gr

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

> Sent: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:06:29 +0100 > From: "Javier Sánchez Portero" > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas > > Josm validation will raises a warning for duplicated ways (way1 an

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

Would any one support a proposal for a new tag building:part:levels=* to separate the levels of the building from the part as in this case: way1 {building=residential, building:part=yes, building:levels=4, building:part:levels=3} way2 {building:part=yes, building:levels=4} way2 is inside way1 Thi

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

Le 19. 08. 17 à 00:52, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > they are describing all "overground" building levels *without the roof levels* right. > and minus the building:min_level. no. min_level is a 3D feature. the level of a building as a whole doesn't take care of min_level. A building as a whole c

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

sent from a phone > On 18. Aug 2017, at 21:06, Javier Sánchez Portero > wrote: > > I accept this, although is not clearly expressed in > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels > Does everyone agree that building:levels refers to the maximum number of > building levels? As

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

Le 18. 08. 17 à 21:06, Javier Sánchez Portero a écrit : > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels > Does everyone agree that building:levels refers to the maximum number of > building levels? This is common sense, irl when you talk about the number of levels of a building, it is t

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

Hello Tobias and Cristian 2017-08-18 17:41 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr : > On 18.08.2017 10:01, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > If e.g. the lower floors of the apartment building is wider than the > > upper floors, you can tag the outline with both, building=apartments and > > building:part=yes and the appropr

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

> Sent: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:47:04 +0100 > From: "Javier Sánchez Portero" > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas > > Thank you. This clarifies me a lot because I had not thought to use both &

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

On 18.08.2017 10:01, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > If e.g. the lower floors of the apartment building is wider than the > upper floors, you can tag the outline with both, building=apartments and > building:part=yes and the appropriate 3D-properties, and the narrower > upper floors with building:part=yes and

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

First tag the whole building without any "part". Therefore, building:levels, height refers to the maximum level and maximum height of the building, not an average. If a single closed way is enough to draw a building, you don't need multipolygon at this time. For nearly all applications that don't

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

With building:part you are actually describing 3D volumes. These volumes don't necessarily start at ground level, but ideally should not intersect in 3D. As you can see in the Simple 3D building specification, you can set a "building:min_level" and "min_height" to "raise" a certain part from gr

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

2017-08-18 9:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > On 18.08.2017 02:30, Clifford Snow wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Javier Sánchez Portero < >> javiers...@gmail.com > wrote: >> * In the wiki [1] says that the outline should be tagged with >> building:levels a

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

Sorry, I should have taken time to give some examples. Please read below (I rev. 2017-08-18 1:30 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow : > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Javier Sánchez Portero < > javiers...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I am thinking in ways to reduce the complexity that introduces the >> m

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

On 18.08.2017 02:30, Clifford Snow wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Javier Sánchez Portero > wrote: * In the wiki [1] says that the outline should be tagged with building:levels and height, but this, if the parts cover the whole outline, is a duplicati

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Javier Sánchez Portero < javiers...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am thinking in ways to reduce the complexity that introduces the mapping > of parts of buildings. For example: > > * If one part is inscribed within a larger one, can I use simple ways > overlapped and lea

[Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

Hello. I am thinking in ways to reduce the complexity that introduces the mapping of parts of buildings. For example: * If one part is inscribed within a larger one, can I use simple ways overlapped and leave to the render decide how to draw them or should I create a multipolygon for the larger p