Re: [OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

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

[OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

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