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 [1][2][3], and it's right. These are really tall, hundreds of
meters, towers made of steel and concrete, which are and will be
standing for centuries.
Verticalization is an inevitable complex process in urban development,
so 3D is necessary. The good place to start would be these "elephants in
the room". However, drawing turrets of normal buildings in 3D in my
opinion is still an experiment, a "future music".
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower
http://osm.org/go/0BOdUuUUg
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8581675,2.2947875,18.31z
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emley_Moor_transmitting_station
http://osm.org/go/evinV00xh-
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6121585,-1.6630658,17.75z
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostankino_Tower
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/55.81972/37.61209
https://www.google.com/maps/@55.819668,37.6118877,18.31z
Best regards,
Oleksiy
On 17/06/16 18:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
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 detailed 3D objects get mapped.
While at first this seemed to be an interesting (and maybe logical)
development of some advanced mappers, to further push the limits of
mapping, more and more doubts have grown in the meantime whether this
kind of data is sustainable. Particularly because the raised
complexity leads to many errors, where people recreate already
existing objects or add localized name tags (or other tags) to
(building:)parts that are mainly there for geometric representation in
3d, but are not the objects that actually represent the feature (i.e.
those that have most of the tags). Subsequently other mappers find
these objects (with some tags) and add more, and after a while it can
become plain chaos, until someone with a lot of time dedicates herself
to clean the mess up.
And honestly, I can understand this happening, these objects are
really complex and after something has been "3D-fied" it becomes at
least time consuming, if not completely confusing to make any simple
edit (like adding a new tag), because you have to search the "main
object" and understand where to put the tag.
I believe there is something conceptually wrong with adding those
3D-monsters into the common db and require from everybody to
understand them, without proper support or hierarchy on an API- or
editor-level.
(a side-issue is that many monuments like columns, obelisks and
similar are modelled as "building:parts", where there clearly is
nothing that is a building, but rather a massive stone)
Some examples (load them in your editor to understand what I am
talking about):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.90224/12.45784
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.90297/12.46658
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.89591/12.48466 (the Trajan's
column, a simple column consisting in osm of 9 concentric objects!
Find the right one, if all of them get their name rendered at the same
spot in the editor)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.89854/12.47695 (the Pantheon,
countless times there pop up duplicates as nodes)
What are your experiences?
Cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
