[Indoor] Balcony building parts

[Volker Krause]

Hello,

I'm not sure building:part=balcony is special here, all structural rather than 
functional building:part values would probably benefit from a definition of 
their implications on SIT.

If building:part=balcony implies indoor=area (ie. walkable by default) then 
building:part=corridor probably should as well, etc. This would then require 
SIT-compatible level tagging on the building parts, otherwise this becomes 
difficult to put together correctly.

Not doing that, ie. building:part having no implication on (positive) 
routability, would require an extra tag (e.g. indoor=area) on those parts, 
which isn't terrible either.

I don't think building:part impacting SIT can be avoided entirely though for 
negative routability, ie. building:part=column would need to be considered as 
an obstacle either way.

Another aspect to look at are implied walls/barriers around building parts. It 
seems very hard to come up with sufficiently universal rules for that, similar 
to the discussion we had with implied walls on indoor=corridor.

Best regards,
Volker

On Montag, 21. Juli 2025 10:15:59 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit Tobias Knerr 
via indoor wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm involved in a discussion about handling balconies for 3D rendering:
> https://github.com/tordanik/OSM2World/issues/241
> 
> We've previously touched on handling balconies in the context of
> (quasi-)indoor mapping. I would appreciate your thoughts on this
> proposed building part value, and especially the questions relating to
> SIT. This would help refine my own thinking and my decision on whether
> to add support for this tag to my 3D renderer.
> 
> Yours,
> Tobias

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/indoor/attachments/20250722/922cdbe5/attachment.sig>