[OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

Janko Mihelić janjko at gmail.com
Sat Jun 18 21:26:29 UTC 2016


I'm glad this topic is being discussed. Firstly, we have two incompatible
tagging schemes: 3D buildings and indoor tagging. Try to imagine a building
having these two sets of shapes and tags. It can't be done without entirely
new tools. Those tools would have nothing to do with maps.

I think the solution, at least for complicated buildings, is a new
database. Something like 3D Warehouse by Google[1]. There you could model
those buildings in a dedicated opensource tool, add textures to 3D models,
use photos for textures, and a lot of things you can't do in OSM. A
different database could have plans of buildings, and you could  draw
corridors, tables, doors and windows in the dedicated application. Then
link to those objects in OSM.

If Wikipedia has sister projects like Wikiquotes, Wikibooks, Wikivoyage,
why wouldn't we have something like this? Why do we have to cram everything
into OSM?

[1] - https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/

Janko

sub, 18. lip 2016. u 23:06 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
napisao je:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 18 giu 2016, alle ore 12:36, Marco Boeringa <
> marco at boeringa.demon.nl> ha scritto:
> >
> > I have now added a type=building relation to group the Pantheon's Simple
> 3D features in a logical way ....... I hope you agree that navigating the
> buildings individual parts, and finding the actual feature that carries the
> buildings tags (which should always be the closed way or multipolygon with
> the outline role), is now fare easier.
>
>
> yes, thank you, this is indeed a significant improvement and should be
> encouraged for all 3d mapping of buildings.
>
> I'm undecided whether this approach should also be applied to non-building
> stuff like the Trajan's Column or the obelisk at St.Peter's Square. These
> aren't buildings (but as they are mapped as building parts, the situation
> isn't all that different). Either these parts should get different tags, or
> the same kind of logical grouping should be used?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20160618/2b56f67b/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list