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 <cliff...@snowandsnow.us>: > > > 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: >> > I have reversed the order of the points * 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 duplication since these tags will always be in some of the parts. >> Could I delete the part(s) whose labels match those of the outline? >> > > If you use a multipolygon, then the multipolygon would contain the levels > and height. > I'm refering to 3D modeling of building height and levels, according to [1]. For example, this building [2] have two heights and should be drawn two parts inside the building footprint, one with (building:part=yes, building:levels=1, height=3) [3], and another one with (building:part=yes, building:levels=2, height=6). As the building footprint [2] could have the levels and height tags I put them in it avoiding to draw one part. I meant, the building area is not entirely covered by building:part areas. All the building in this village was drawn according to this. I take the rule to put in the building:levels and height tags of the full building those of the level wich parts sum a greatest area instead of the maximum values. For a example see the adjacent building to the left [4]. It have (building:levels=1, height=3) instead of the maximum values (building:levels=2, height=6) of the building:part [5]. This way I avoid to draw two parts inside the building. I consider that the maximum building:levels and height could be calculated by a consumer from the building and its parts instead. I'm wrong with it? But it's against what says the wiki [6]. > * 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 part with the smaller part with inner >> role? I'm prone to the first. >> > > An example would help. If the building has an inner court yard, then a > multipolygon would be appropriate, with the inner court yard with an inner > role. > I'm not referring to buildings with holes but to nested building:part areas. Consider this building [7] with a big one-story part and a smaller two-story part [8] within it. If I use the full detailled schema I will need a multipolygon relation for the one-story part, but I avoid this putting the tags in the footprint (violating the rule of maximum levels and height in it). I don't have real example at hand, but supposes another three-story part inscribed inside the two-story part [8]. should I use a multipolygon for the two-story part to fully separate it area from the three-story part area? Or could I just draw the inner three-story part, overlapping both areas? [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459549932 [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459550128 [4] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459549958 [5] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459550129 [6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part [7] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215569626 [8] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459573978
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
