[Tagging] levels and min_level (was Underground / hovering buildings)
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Feb 18 17:52:34 GMT 2011
2011/2/18 Peter Wendorff <wendorff at uni-paderborn.de>:
>> In my opinion, the better choice would be to invent a new tag for
>> building parts, and map the entire building's outline as building=yes in
>> addition to the individual parts.
I would also like to see building parts, but I think that another
option instead of drawing another way for the "whole building" would
be to group those parts with a relation.
> Yes, it could be a good idea to invent a separate tag for building parts.
> I would appreciate that (and initially these issues are part of the reason
> why my proposal is not a proposed tagging scheme in the common sense of the
> proposal process).
> But one question is left here:
> What is the building outline you would like to map in future as
> building=yes, too?
> Is it (a) the "maximum size outline" as shown in aerial imagery?
yes, I guess that's an easy to map approach that would suit well
> Is it (b) the "on-ground-outline" a pedestrian would be able to go along?
no, this would in some cases be ridiculous (think of a
"mushroom"-building: the most parts would miss). If this is required
(in some cases there is indeed a huge benefit) I would use another
> Is it (c) the "maximum size outline" including underground parts not build
> up above ground - like bigger underground parking areas?
No, I would not extend this to underground parts (they would get their
own tagging and ways if necessary). Showing underground in a standard
map will be very confusing, because they will not be recognizable on
the ground and hence create a different shape in respect to what
people are used to see on the ground. (They are more confusing then
> Is (d) the building=yes a fallback for renderers not supporting the
could be interpreted as such. Could also be a reduction for lower zoom
levels and renderings that focus less on building detail
More information about the Tagging