Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
2011/2/16 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net: On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:56:54 -0500 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Since giving long ground-level ways nonzero layers screws up every place they cross another way, it seems clear what should be done. -1 is used for rivers commonly over long distances where traced and no idea where the bridges actually are. this depends on the level of detail the map has. In the early days I also found this quite often, while now with the mapping advancing this gets less. I suggest to split the way at the situation where you apply a layer tag to avoid these problems with long ways carrying a layer tag. whether the river is at or below ground level is another opinion which varies in different environments Yes, but I'd call subterranean rivers an exception. Usually rivers are at ground level. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:56:54 -0500 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Since giving long ground-level ways nonzero layers screws up every place they cross another way, it seems clear what should be done. -1 is used for rivers commonly over long distances where traced and no idea where the bridges actually are. whether the river is at or below ground level is another opinion which varies in different environments ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:12:34AM +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/14 Andrew Guertin andrew.guer...@uvm.edu: Second, an underground building. Connects to other buildings that are at ground level and have basements. layer=-1 for the underground building. You could maybe also try covered=yes layer=-1 tells only that the thing is under layer=0 and over layer=-2, nothing in relation to 'ground level' (some rivers or roads may have layer=-1 or layer=1 on most of its length). For underground roads and waterways 'tunnel=yes' works well. Would it be applicable to buildings? And in some cases I guess a footway or other tunnel may be a good representation of the underground connection of buildings. Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
2011/2/15 Jacek Konieczny jaj...@jajcus.net: On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:12:34AM +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/14 Andrew Guertin andrew.guer...@uvm.edu: Second, an underground building. Connects to other buildings that are at ground level and have basements. layer=-1 for the underground building. You could maybe also try covered=yes layer=-1 tells only that the thing is under layer=0 and over layer=-2, nothing in relation to 'ground level' I wasn't referring to ground level but to the other buildings that are above and to the earth / ways / landuse / natural features / landcover that are probably above. (some rivers or roads may have layer=-1 or layer=1 on most of its length). In our data yes. In reality besides tunnels you would hardly find this (assuming that it is easier to understand for mappers to set layer=1 for objects above then default layer=-1 for stuff that might cross underneath other objects. For underground roads and waterways 'tunnel=yes' works well. Would it be applicable to buildings? consider tunnel=culvert for underground waterways (depending on the situation) And in some cases I guess a footway or other tunnel may be a good representation of the underground connection of buildings. +1 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
Jacek Konieczny wrote: layer=-1 tells only that the thing is under layer=0 and over layer=-2, nothing in relation to 'ground level' (some rivers or roads may have layer=-1 or layer=1 on most of its length). No, ground level is layer 0. A nonzero layer on a ground-level feature is an error. However, layer=-1 does not mean it's covered by surface, if the surface has been removed. For example, during construction of a building, the basement will be open to the air. For the original question, I'd probably use layer=-1, covered=yes, underground=yes, location=underground, and enough other semi-made-up tags that one is bound to stick. In addition, it's not always clear what ground level is in dense urban environments. In part of downtown Chicago, the pre-civilization ground level is now under two levels of elevated streets. But there are buildings that fill the formerly-open spaces, so in some sense ground level has moved up two layers. Here it's probably best to explicitly label layer=0 on whatever's chosen as the current ground level. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Underground-hovering-buildings-tp6025288p6029515.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
2011/2/15 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Jacek Konieczny wrote: layer=-1 tells only that the thing is under layer=0 and over layer=-2, nothing in relation to 'ground level' (some rivers or roads may have layer=-1 or layer=1 on most of its length). No, ground level is layer 0. A nonzero layer on a ground-level feature is an error. -1, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer In addition, it's not always clear what ground level is in dense urban environments. +1, but as there is not tag for ground-level that's not a big problem for us. In part of downtown Chicago, the pre-civilization ground level is now under two levels of elevated streets. But there are buildings that fill the formerly-open spaces, so in some sense ground level has moved up two layers. yes, that's a frequent phenomenon, in other parts of the world with an older history you can find stuff as deep as 50 or maybe even 100 metres (e.g. in China), another famous example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk , where 14 levels in this former settlement were identified (hence it's impossible to bring them all in OSM ;-) ). Here it's probably best to explicitly label layer=0 on whatever's chosen as the current ground level. no, layers don't express something like ground-level. You can tag everything with layer=0 but it is pointless, as that's one of the very few defaults in OSM. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On 15 February 2011 23:11, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Jacek Konieczny wrote: layer=-1 tells only that the thing is under layer=0 and over layer=-2, nothing in relation to 'ground level' (some rivers or roads may have layer=-1 or layer=1 on most of its length). No, ground level is layer 0. A nonzero layer on a ground-level feature is an error. That's never been a rule in OSM. However, since the choice of the level=0 feature is arbitrary there's nothing wrong with actually assuming (as a producer, not consumer) 0 to mean the perceived ground level and I usually do that. That way I can at least re-tag my work easily once there's a popular levels_above_ground tag. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On 2/15/2011 5:38 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/15 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: Jacek Konieczny wrote: layer=-1 tells only that the thing is under layer=0 and over layer=-2, nothing in relation to 'ground level' (some rivers or roads may have layer=-1 or layer=1 on most of its length). No, ground level is layer 0. A nonzero layer on a ground-level feature is an error. -1, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
2011/2/16 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: -1, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer our wiki is becoming something like the bible: you can find a page for every opinion ;-) I don't have a big problem with layer=0 being considered ground level, but before someone wrote it on the key page the consensus was that layers do only express relative order, not an absolute position. I suggest we agree on one version and correct the other one. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On 2/15/2011 7:52 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/16 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: -1, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer our wiki is becoming something like the bible: you can find a page for every opinion ;-) I don't have a big problem with layer=0 being considered ground level, but before someone wrote it on the key page the consensus was that layers do only express relative order, not an absolute position. I suggest we agree on one version and correct the other one. Since giving long ground-level ways nonzero layers screws up every place they cross another way, it seems clear what should be done. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 01:52 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/16 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: -1, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer our wiki is becoming something like the bible: you can find a page for every opinion ;-) Thats the great thing about standards, theres so many to choose from. I suggest we agree on one version and correct the other one. Well, the page seems to contradict itself, suggesting that a tunnel under a building is layer=0. Also in a note near the bottom of the page, it is suggested that a flat bridge at the same level as the ground around it should be level=1, even if what it crosses is far below. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
David Murn wrote: Well, the page seems to contradict itself, suggesting that a tunnel under a building is layer=0. Depends if the tunnel goes underground or just through a building while remaining at ground level (though the latter case might be better described as covered). David Murn wrote: Also in a note near the bottom of the page, it is suggested that a flat bridge at the same level as the ground around it should be level=1, even if what it crosses is far below. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Gorge_Bridge The ground level itself goes down into the gorge. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Underground-hovering-buildings-tp6025288p6030751.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
I have a few buildings that are not simply at ground level, and I can't find how to map them on the wiki. First off, a skywalk between two buildings. Nothing fancy, although it does go over a road. Second, an underground building. Connects to other buildings that are at ground level and have basements. Third, a building with a courtyard, and a basement that also extends below the basement. Fourth a building that has been built into a cliff. At the top of the cliff, on top of the building, are roads and sidewalks and things. Fifth, a building on a hill, with entrances variously on the third, second, and first floor. One of the second floor entrances leads out onto a green roof, which has grass planted on it and connects to the ground, but reaches out farther than the hill would naturally. Are there accepted ways to enter any of these buildings? If there's not an accepted way, any thoughts on what I should do? Thanks, Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On 15 February 2011 10:26, Andrew Guertin andrew.guer...@uvm.edu wrote: I have a few buildings that are not simply at ground level, and I can't find how to map them on the wiki. First off, a skywalk between two buildings. Nothing fancy, although it does go over a road. building=yes bridge=yes layer=1 Second, an underground building. Connects to other buildings that are at ground level and have basements. Third, a building with a courtyard, and a basement that also extends below the basement. Fourth a building that has been built into a cliff. At the top of the cliff, on top of the building, are roads and sidewalks and things. Fifth, a building on a hill, with entrances variously on the third, second, and first floor. One of the second floor entrances leads out onto a green roof, which has grass planted on it and connects to the ground, but reaches out farther than the hill would naturally. Are there accepted ways to enter any of these buildings? If there's not an accepted way, any thoughts on what I should do? the others are somewhat difficult - osm doesn't currently account for them very well. as with most maps, it is based on the assumption that 'ground' is consistent, and everything is a flat, thin item on top of it. until we think in a different paradigm, the instances you have listed will be difficult and only achievable by tags which are rather hacky in their nature (bridge, layer, level, etc.) -- robin http://tangleball.org.nz/ - Auckland's Creative Space http://openstreetmap.org.nz/ - Open Street Map New Zealand http://bumblepuppy.org/blog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
Hi, On 14 February 2011 22:37, Robin Paulson robin.paul...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 February 2011 10:26, Andrew Guertin andrew.guer...@uvm.edu wrote: I have a few buildings that are not simply at ground level, and I can't find how to map them on the wiki. First off, a skywalk between two buildings. Nothing fancy, although it does go over a road. building=yes bridge=yes layer=1 Second, an underground building. Connects to other buildings that are at ground level and have basements. Third, a building with a courtyard, and a basement that also extends below the basement. Fourth a building that has been built into a cliff. At the top of the cliff, on top of the building, are roads and sidewalks and things. Fifth, a building on a hill, with entrances variously on the third, second, and first floor. One of the second floor entrances leads out onto a green roof, which has grass planted on it and connects to the ground, but reaches out farther than the hill would naturally. Are there accepted ways to enter any of these buildings? If there's not an accepted way, any thoughts on what I should do? the others are somewhat difficult - osm doesn't currently account for them very well. as with most maps, it is based on the assumption that 'ground' is consistent, and everything is a flat, thin item on top of it. until we think in a different paradigm, the instances you have listed will be difficult and only achievable by tags which are rather hacky in their nature (bridge, layer, level, etc.) There's a proposal at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jongleur/MultiLevel_Building_Shapes that works for some of these examples but for other uses would indeed be hacky. This proposed schema gained some popularity because there are 3d renderers that understand it. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 16:26 -0500, Andrew Guertin wrote: I have a few buildings that are not simply at ground level, and I can't find how to map them on the wiki. First off, a skywalk between two buildings. Nothing fancy, although it does go over a road. As said before, use building/bridge/layer. Second, an underground building. Connects to other buildings that are at ground level and have basements. You can use the building description tags for this. For example, say you had a 2-level building entirely underground, which attached through a basement to another which had 2 levels underground and 3 above-ground. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Minlevel.svg Based on a quick read of this picture, and simply adapting the min tags, the underground one can be: building=yes building:levels=2 building:min_level=-2 height=6 min_height=-6 Aboveground can be: building=yes building:levels=5 building:min_level=-2 height=30 min_height=-6 Third, a building with a courtyard, and a basement that also extends below the basement. Again, similar to above. Fourth a building that has been built into a cliff. At the top of the cliff, on top of the building, are roads and sidewalks and things. Again, similar to above, however use layer tags to correctly indicate what roads are above/below/level with the building space. Fifth, a building on a hill, with entrances variously on the third, second, and first floor. One of the second floor entrances leads out onto a green roof, which has grass planted on it and connects to the ground, but reaches out farther than the hill would naturally. You can use the same techniques of min_level and levels to indicate that too, along with layer tag. This isnt much different to grade separated on-ramps where there is a way between two junctions which are at different elevations. Are there accepted ways to enter any of these buildings? If there's not an accepted way, any thoughts on what I should do? Im happy to be corrected or have better advice pointed out, but from my reading, I think the tagging system I suggested would be appropriate, even if it needed a little of tweaking. Thanks, Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
Hi Andrew, I'm not that sure but there seem to be a building:levels:aboveground besides the building:levels tag. So levels-aboveground=levels below ground? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM-3D#Buildings Currently we put all 3D experts together to make a better roadmap on what and how to use 3D datas in OSM, feel free to join. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/3D_Development regards Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
2011/2/14 Andrew Guertin andrew.guer...@uvm.edu: Second, an underground building. Connects to other buildings that are at ground level and have basements. layer=-1 for the underground building. You could maybe also try covered=yes Third, a building with a courtyard, and a basement that also extends below the basement. as we don't have elevation, the building would be drawn like all other buildings with courtyard (multipolygon relation) Fourth a building that has been built into a cliff. At the top of the cliff, on top of the building, are roads and sidewalks and things. simply draw the roads above the building and give them the layer tag (or the building a negative layer). Mapnik is ignoring these layers and will draw the roads in any case above the building, but for topology they are needed. Fifth, a building on a hill, with entrances variously on the third, second, and first floor. One of the second floor entrances leads out onto a green roof, which has grass planted on it and connects to the ground, but reaches out farther than the hill would naturally. will be mapped like if the hill was flat. Simply draw entrances and ways (building=entrance on a node). If several elements overlap, order them with layers. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
