[Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Aug 23 00:13:00 UTC 2017



sent from a phone

> On 23. Aug 2017, at 00:55, marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> IMHO it is only one building that rest on the ground
> including what you consider as separate buildings.


here's an example, it's from 2001 in the port of Rotterdam and called parasite:
https://marialuisatavano94.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/12173085_dfa754ea6f-324361.jpg

a building atop a building. This is not very common, but these cases do exist.


> 
>> or on a pole or on several pylons
> if it was a few garages on the ground level,
> we 'll make again 2 building:part, one for the ground level,
> another for the floors.


here's another building:
https://s1.at.atcdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/029polehouse05mattlord.jpg

building:levels=1? or is it just a roof level and building:levels=0? Like these: https://media-cdn.holidaycheck.com/w_1280,h_720,c_fit,q_80/ugc/images/8854772a-b9a1-3711-8828-598092649a71



> A building with poles at the first level is like
> if garages had been replaced by poles.
> A building:part for the "pole" level, another for the floors.
> so for the whole, no min_level tag


indeed some cases are better modeled with a min_height tag.


> 
>> or be on a tree
> and what value for min_level 'll you use to solve this ?


I'm all for min_height in this case. According to the wiki we should be tagging building:levels=n1+n2
building:min_level=n2
with
n1=actual building levels
and n2=space between building and ground divided by height of these building levels

And this is already a benevolent interpretation of the wiki, you could also see n2 as "normal level height" or as height of nearby building parts. IMHO that's all insane (as is the idea to omit underground and particularly roof levels in the level count).


> Or could we simplify and consider that between the ground
> and the floor of the hut there is a building:part=tree
> and therefore do without min_level on the building as a whole ?


I wouldn't consider the tree a building part, although it's a part of the building. What do you do with a building atop a mountain, will the mountain become a building part?

Quite iconic also this structure by Kenzo Tange: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/33/0f/84/330f845c9bec3e1a3db5abc357a2528b.jpg
You could consider the single capsules buildings.

cheers,
Martin 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170823/320b500f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list