Cliffs are never truly vertical. A bird's eye view from above will show that. If they are steep enough they could be modelled as a line, but in general we should allow for a polygon, with a high side and a low side.
On 7 January 2016 17:32:49 CET, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >sent from a phone > >> Am 07.01.2016 um 17:14 schrieb Aaron Spaulding <aa...@sachimp.com>: >> >> Either of these models can be used. I think option 1 makes the most >sense, but I’d like to know what the community consensus is. > > >I've always thought of ele representing the lower part, which is clear >for man made features like buildings or obelisks (elevation of the >ground, then add height for the highest point at that spot). Now when >it comes to vertical elements like cliffs, where you have ground on >both ends, it admittedly becomes ambiguous, but my suggestion would be >to define to use the lower end also in these cases for >simplicity/uniformity. > > >cheers, >Martin >_______________________________________________ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
