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 type=building relations are
possible, sure. As Martin observed, though, those are exceptional cases.
The existence of a small proportion of buildings that call for relations
does not feel like a good reason to demand relations for every single 3D
building.
> Even when neither multi-layered nor nested buildings exist, they may aid
> in data validation and plausibility checks.
If I tried to find the most common mapping errors with 3D buildings, I
would probably look for some of the following situations:
* Building parts that cannot be unambiguously matched with a building
outline.
* Buildings that aren't fully covered in building parts.
* Floating building parts that don't touch the rest of the building.
And probably a few more. None of these requires relations.
Yet they may ease maintenance
work for oneself and other mappers, since they usually convey an overview
of all the parts present. But of course it depends on mapping workflow if
this is true to a particular mapper.
While there are mappers who love using relations as part of their
workflow, the relatively low usage numbers of the building relation (and
other optional relations) strongly suggest that this preference is not
shared by the majority of mappers.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
