[Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Thu Jan 7 22:40:37 UTC 2016


Cliffs are never truly vertical. A bird's eye view from above will show that. If they are steep enough they could be modelled as a line, but in general we should allow for a polygon, with a high side and a low side.


On 7 January 2016 17:32:49 CET, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> Am 07.01.2016 um 17:14 schrieb Aaron Spaulding <Aaron at sachimp.com>:
>> 
>> Either of these models can be used. I think option 1 makes the most
>sense, but I’d like to know what the community consensus is.
>
>
>I've always thought of ele representing the lower part, which is clear
>for man made features like buildings or obelisks (elevation of the
>ground, then add height for the highest point at that spot). Now when
>it comes to vertical elements like cliffs, where you have ground on
>both ends, it admittedly becomes ambiguous, but my suggestion would be
>to define to use the lower end also in these cases for
>simplicity/uniformity.
>
>
>cheers,
>Martin 
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160107/c408b80c/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list