Am 18.06.2016 um 23:26 schrieb Janko Mihelić:
> I'm glad this topic is being discussed. Firstly, we have two
> incompatible tagging schemes: 3D buildings and indoor tagging. Try to
> imagine a building having these two sets of shapes and tags.
The tagging schemes aren't incompatible (matter of
I'm glad this topic is being discussed. Firstly, we have two incompatible
tagging schemes: 3D buildings and indoor tagging. Try to imagine a building
having these two sets of shapes and tags. It can't be done without entirely
new tools. Those tools would have nothing to do with maps.
I think the
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 18 giu 2016, alle ore 12:36, Marco Boeringa
> ha scritto:
>
> I have now added a type=building relation to group the Pantheon's Simple 3D
> features in a logical way ... I hope you agree that navigating the
> buildings individual
Martin,
I have now added a type=building relation to group the Pantheon's Simple
3D features in a logical way. It is this relation:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6325840.
I added the "outline" role to the multipolygon representing the
building's footprint, and added the "part" role
I agree there are currently issues. It is an unstoppable trend, but it
would be good if there was better support and enforcing of "best
practices" so as to avoid loosing the ability to create proper 2D maps
in a quest to map every detail of 3D (or for that matter Indoor) buildings.
One thing
What surprises is that such colossal structures as Eiffel Tower [1],
Emley Moor Mast [2], Ostankino Tower [3], etc. do not even have an icon
on the OSM map. They look as an usual building at best. Just for
comparison, - on Google map it is immediately visible that it is a tall
structure
With this mail I would like to open a general discussion, whether it makes
sense to add detailed 3D data into the current OSM db.
Living in a historic city with lots of tourists (many of them mappers
apparently), and lots of famous monuments, I am observing for years now,
that more and more
7 matches
Mail list logo