Changeset: 128428505
remove building:part=no when building=yes
Closed by RedAuburn
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (18583 en_GB) |
---|---|
source | https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1nmg |
Discussion
-
Comment from RedAuburn
(sorry about the big changeset)
-
Comment from ivanbranco
Hi endim8,
are you aware of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ?
-
Comment from maro21
Please revert this changeset. Building:part=no with building=yes is totally correct and I use this tagging for 3D buildings.
-
Comment from ivanbranco
@maro21 I see problems with the automated edit but not with content of it, what's the meaning of leaving building:part=no with building=yes? Isn't it implied?
-
Comment from maro21
I also see the problem with the automated edit because it wasn't discussed and spans all world, so I can't even check if there were changes in my city where I meticulously added these tags for 3D tagging. No, it's not implied.
-
Comment from RedAuburn
Fair enough for the automated edit (although I really don't think it should apply to these maintenance-style fixes), but building= & building:part= both imply one 'building part' by their existence. Tagging building:part=no is like tagging building=no.
A renderer not correctly displaying data should be fixed, not the data changed.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse_Revert
This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 128592022 where the changeset comment is: Reverting an undiscussed mechanical edit - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128428505
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
> I really don't think it should apply to these maintenance-style fixes
The comments above are exactly why https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct applies to fixes like this. While in many cases removing a redundant tag might make sense, in others it absolutely does not, and a discussion would allow people to look at the edge cases.
I fully agree that "A renderer not correctly displaying data should be fixed" - but the only way we can understand that is to have the discussion and find out why some people think the tag is needed. -
Comment from miroslavuzice87
ivanbranco wrote: "I see problems with the automated edit but not with content of it, what's the meaning of leaving building:part=no with building=yes? Isn't it implied?"
Answer: It is definitely not implied. The reason why this tag building:part=no NEEDs to be added with the building=yes is for the object actually to be rendered like here: https://osmbuildings.org/?lat=43.85171&lon=19.84253&zoom=16.0&tilt=30 and here: https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=43.8533517&lon=19.8545375&zoom=17
All building:part=yes tags must be within an outline of a tag building=yes & building:part=no together with eachother because this second tag building:part=no is the one that defines the hall structure of a building and allows it to render because it excludes outline of a building as a part of a building. So when this tag was removed the hall building loose its value and couldn't render anymore on any map. So it is a good thing that this changeset was reverted in order to bring back good render.
Miroslav -
Comment from ivanbranco
Ok I got what you mean (I think), from the Wiki:
"The building outline provides backward compatibility for 2D rendering software, such as Mapnik, and other data consumers not interested in 3D modeling. When a building has any building:part=* areas, the building outline is not considered for 3D rendering."Imho this is "lying for the renderer". I don't think 3d renderers know what building:part=no mean, they don't care about the value at all (they don't render differently if it's building:part=balcony or building:part=column) so you are "lying" to the renderer telling him the outline IS a building part.
The proper solution imho would be to have a building:part with the same outline geometry. The difference is that in the building (not :part) outline is tagged with the attributes that are common to the whole building (such as the address) while the building part would be just there for the renderer (so without address). Also considere that the outline needs to have the max height, while the building part would have the outline height minus the roof height.
Maybe someone with better english can re-phrase this better.
tl;dr building:part=no is wrong imho and should be fixed with an additional building:part
-
Comment from maro21
I'd compare `building:part=no` with mapping a building as a node - mapping a building as a node is not wrong, but it's just not the best solution. But mapping as a node has already information, that in case a new imagery is published and available, one can map the building as a way. It is possible to have a working 3D building without using building:part=no, but this tag can be used to "rescue" the 3D model of a building which was not perfectly modeled or is not yet finished. Imagine a building with 3000 building:part's - it may not be finished and building:part=no helps to some extent. Of course it can be replaced with the better 3D modeling but usually, from my experience, it's A LOT of work.
-
Comment from ivanbranco
Nope, mapping buildings as node is only less detailed, but clear to everyone and documented on the wiki. Mapping a building as building:part=no to tell the renderer that the element IS a building part is just weird, the value is not documented anywhere and the logic behind it goes against the current 3d mapping schema, which requires that "the entire building outline should be filled with building:part=* areas" (from the Wiki).
In your example you flag the outline as a building part to "save" an incomplete rendering, but why not using building:part=yes then?
building:part=no is semantically wrong and makes no sense. And is confusing to other people. You read that and think the mapper wanted to flag the exact opposite.
- Saint George's Hall (5099086), v16
- Liverpool Lime Street Railway Station (5099098), v36
- 5404604, v8
- 5404606, v9
- Castel Sant’Angelo (8035487), v77
- Porte du Peyrou - Arc de Triomphe (8656870), v23
- 9520368, v11
- Ontario Legislative Building (15089986), v38
- Musée Rath (15256715), v7
- Faculté de Philosophie (19794090), v19
- Peckham Library (19798157), v23
- Les Abattoirs (22896377), v19
- Battistero di San Giovanni (22945162), v28
- Google West Campus 1 (23722455), v15
- Royal Liver Building (24611033), v20
- Tate Modern (24642569), v61
- Google West Campus 3 (25051257), v13
- The Mailbox (25093333), v15
- Archives Départementales (25808918), v7
- Halle des Chartrons (25867203), v9
- Manufacture de Tabac (3506), v11
- Palais de Justice (23498), v10
- 27105, v15
- 133621, v12
- Four Seasons Hotel Moscow (225030), v31
- Большой Кремлёвский дворец (225033), v36
- Cercle Mess Lasalle (234001), v3
- 238818, v5
- 334260, v6
- Palais Universitaire (368604), v11
- 394371, v4
- Бизнес-центр «2.18» (405508), v11
- Bibliothèque Centrale du Service de Santé des Armées (931378), v6
- Hôpital d'instruction des armées du Val-de-Grâce (946121), v7
- Palais de Justice (975119), v4
- Noviciat des Dominicains (1002118), v5
- Cathédrale de la Major (1069937), v16
- Mairie (1082724), v6
- Préfecture des Bouches-du-Rhône (site Peytral) (1084776), v6
- Le Hive (Schneider-Electric) (1114264), v6
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |