Hi, Cruz Enrique Borges wrote: > > - Last time it was discussed there was no consensus that buildings > > should be imported split based on building plan data, e.g. > > http://maps.paulnorman.ca/imports/review/cigarral/building.png > > In the Spanish list there is a rather consensus that it is worth to upload > that data. Moreover, in this particular thread someone said that it would > be a shame that we does not import that information because it would be > very useful. However in the wiki about how to use Cat2Osm we have written a > note, telling that 3d tags can create too many geometries and that the mapper > should decide whether to use it or not.
Usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. While you may find it interesting to have all this 3D information, I'd find it much more useful to have building outlines in OSM that are complete. The single building parts make not much sense for anything but 3D rendering. And I suspect that they are going to give you a big headache once you get around to mapping addresses. The other thing I noticed about this import: you are adding lots of private swimming pools that have only a leisure=swimming_pool tag. That makes it hard to distinguish them from public swimming pools. In France the consensus seems to be to add a tag 'access=private'. I'd suggest that you do the same. Sarah _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
