[Tagging] Simplify building:part areas
Javier Sánchez Portero
javiersanp at gmail.com
Fri Aug 18 08:36:16 UTC 2017
Sorry, I should have taken time to give some examples. Please read below (I
2017-08-18 1:30 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Javier Sánchez Portero <
> javiersanp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am thinking in ways to reduce the complexity that introduces the
>> mapping of parts of buildings. For example:
I have reversed the order of the points
* In the wiki  says that the outline should be tagged with
>> building:levels and height, but this, if the parts cover the whole outline,
>> is a duplication since these tags will always be in some of the parts.
>> Could I delete the part(s) whose labels match those of the outline?
> If you use a multipolygon, then the multipolygon would contain the levels
> and height.
I'm refering to 3D modeling of building height and levels, according to
. For example, this building  have two heights and should be drawn
two parts inside the building footprint, one with (building:part=yes,
building:levels=1, height=3) , and another one with (building:part=yes,
building:levels=2, height=6). As the building footprint  could have the
levels and height tags I put them in it avoiding to draw one part. I meant,
the building area is not entirely covered by building:part areas. All the
building in this village was drawn according to this.
I take the rule to put in the building:levels and height tags of the full
building those of the level wich parts sum a greatest area instead of the
maximum values. For a example see the adjacent building to the left . It
have (building:levels=1, height=3) instead of the maximum values
(building:levels=2, height=6) of the building:part . This way I avoid to
draw two parts inside the building. I consider that the maximum
building:levels and height could be calculated by a consumer from the
building and its parts instead. I'm wrong with it? But it's against what
says the wiki .
> * If one part is inscribed within a larger one, can I use simple ways
>> overlapped and leave to the render decide how to draw them or should I
>> create a multipolygon for the larger part with the smaller part with inner
>> role? I'm prone to the first.
> An example would help. If the building has an inner court yard, then a
> multipolygon would be appropriate, with the inner court yard with an inner
I'm not referring to buildings with holes but to nested building:part
areas. Consider this building  with a big one-story part and a smaller
two-story part  within it. If I use the full detailled schema I will
need a multipolygon relation for the one-story part, but I avoid this
putting the tags in the footprint (violating the rule of maximum levels and
height in it). I don't have real example at hand, but supposes another
three-story part inscribed inside the two-story part . should I use a
multipolygon for the two-story part to fully separate it area from the
three-story part area? Or could I just draw the inner three-story part,
overlapping both areas?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging