[OSM-talk] Extruded buildings

[David Earl]

On 17/09/2007 19:43, Tom Chance wrote:
> On Monday 17 September 2007 16:49:02 Steve Chilton wrote:
>> My view is that is has to be done really well (and completely) to be of
>> any real value. Once you start putting any height visualisation in
>> people want accuracy (cf SteveC's post about accurately surveyed detail
>> of major buildings like the one you illustrated your posting with)
>> rather than impressions. So, actual heights, or numbers of stories, are
>> an absolute must.
> 
> Or don't represent height at all, just show all buildings as slightly extruded 
> like in the shot Artem provided. Then it conveys "ooh, it's a building" 
> really well (I love it) and you don't then think that building is 15 metres 
> high just because Mapnik uses the default of 15.
> 
> On the default map, anyway. If people want to gather height data for their 
> area then they can do that and go all the way with accurate representation of 
> dimensions, shapes, etc. in their render.


I agree completely. I think Artem's buildings are great as "icons", but 
if they start varying in height and so on, they won't really look like 
the building (where is the apex roof and pinnacles of Kings College 
Chapel going to come from?), so there's not much to be gained, and other 
bits of the map will start being obscured "behind" a tall building.

Go for it Artem.

David