On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:11 PM, "Christian Müller" wrote:
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 um 20:22 Uhr
> > Von: "Peter Barth"
> > An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> > Betref
sent from a phone
> On 5 Mar 2017, at 21:11, Christian Müller wrote:
>
> Strictly speaking, even a simple way is just that:
> A relation of points.
+1
it's the technical, abstract way in which relations are mostly presented to the
mappers, that scares many of them, if this gets abstracted a
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 um 20:22 Uhr
> Von: "Peter Barth"
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings
>
> Mappers even screw up simple multipolygons all the time.
Addendum: It's
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 um 20:22 Uhr
> Von: "Peter Barth"
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings
>
>
> you're probably more than 10 years late with that and there had
>
Hi Christian,
"Christian Müller" schrieb:
> I'm sure there is a lot of stuff in OSM where you could
> trade code against a relation. But most of the time it
> introduces dependencies: on caching [...]
you're probably more than 10 years late with that and there had
been many to suggest great new
> Gesendet: Samstag, 04. März 2017 um 21:21 Uhr
> Von: "Tobias Knerr"
> An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings
>
> And probably a few more. None of these requires relations.
I'm sure there is a lot of stuff in OSM whe
On 04.03.2017 18:05, "Christian Müller" wrote:
Thanks for the examples and conclusion given. This is a strong reason to
demand its usage in wiki docs and IMO we should even suggest their usage
generally, regardless of the construction site's complexity.
Situations complex enough to require typ
> Gesendet: Samstag, 04. März 2017 um 10:17 Uhr
> Von: "Martin Koppenhoefer"
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings
>
> So no, the building relations to group building:parts are not strictl
sent from a phone
> On 3 Mar 2017, at 23:04, Christian Müller wrote:
>
> It may be redundant, but it's far from useless.
it may seem redundant, and if you assume construction sites to be unique for a
certain piece of land you would be right, but there are exceptions. There are
really build
> Gesendet: Freitag, 03. März 2017 um 20:04 Uhr
> Von: "Tobias Knerr"
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings
>
> The type=building relation is unnecessary [..]
It may be redundant, but it&
> Gesendet: Freitag, 03. März 2017 um 03:36 Uhr
> Von: "Kevin Kenny"
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings
>
> I'm hijacking the thread a bit here
You do not, this list is claimed t
On 02.03.2017 17:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
do I understand you correctly, we use 1 way (or multipolygon) for every
building:part plus 1 multipolygon relation with building=* as a fallback
plus 1 type=building relation for every single building?
We use one area for every building:part, plus
covered=yes is exactly what I was looking for, thanks!
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2017-03-03 14:36 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kenny :
>
>> Oops - I thought I'd copied and pasted the link, honest!
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/436809818
>>
>> I'm not yet trying fo
2017-03-03 14:36 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kenny :
> Oops - I thought I'd copied and pasted the link, honest!
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/436809818
>
> I'm not yet trying for 2.5d - without topography, that'll give quite odd
> results.
>
you're already doing some 2.5d, the amount of building:level
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2017-03-03 3:36 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kenny :
>
>> On the campus of GE Research in Niskayuna, New York, there's a fairly
>> substantial building that is on a bridge across a ravine.
>>
> a pointer to the osm object would maybe help to get mor
2017-03-03 3:36 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kenny :
> I'm hijacking the thread a bit here, but the discussion of "bridge
> buildings" in Martin's message made me think of this:
>
> On the campus of GE Research in Niskayuna, New York, there's a fairly
> substantial building that is on a bridge across a ravine.
I'm hijacking the thread a bit here, but the discussion of "bridge
buildings" in Martin's message made me think of this:
On the campus of GE Research in Niskayuna, New York, there's a fairly
substantial building that is on a bridge across a ravine.
>From the way it renders, I think that I've prob
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. März 2017 um 17:19 Uhr
> Von: "Martin Koppenhoefer"
> An: "Christian Müller"
> Cc: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings
>
> do I understand you
Thank you for the extensive answer. Here are some comments:
2017-03-02 15:24 GMT+01:00 "Christian Müller" :
> I usually go for a mixture of 1.1. and 1.3., i.e.
>
> - use building:part for the architectural blocks the building is made of,
> with building:min_height / building:min_level where appr
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. März 2017 um 14:09 Uhr
> Von: "Martin Koppenhoefer"
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Betreff: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings
>
> I have just started mapping according to the simple building scheme
Also note that there are some implications in 2d mapnik rendering.
With the building outline we define and the mapnik rules that were
set upto render everything highway=* _above_ anything else, the
renderer _will_ overlap a building outline with a pedestrian area.
Esp. when (highway=pedestrian ar
ot of small detail that is hard to
capture with the simple buildings proposal, you
could still go for an external model, store the data
elsewhere and mash it, like f4-map does.
Greetings
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. März 2017 um 14:09 Uhr
Von: "Martin Koppenhoefer"
An: "T
I have just started mapping according to the simple building scheme and
have some questions to the more experienced mappers:
A situation I meet very often are buildings consisting in several parts,
e.g. often there are higher parts on the (flat) roof that are smaller than
the rest.
1. Which repre
23 matches
Mail list logo
