New 3D examples..

Great cmif4!
I have recently unfortunaltely no time for teaching. Normally I like it.
Thank you!

Marek

It is not perfect but this is what is being made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashupatinath_Temple

most roof:height are missing
This is because roofs have been digitized separately than buildings. Since roofs cover much larger area than the building, atleast twice as large. So roofs are made as buildings without the lower part.

generated roof:height is higher than height - min_height
This is because there is no support for trapezoidal roof, Pyramidal roof are made by giving higher value for roof:height and then another structure is used to cover up the extra part. Since values are not exact, there are some mismatches.

roof:colour=#cococo
This has been corrected.

many dupplicated nodes, overlapping buildings and other JOSM Warnings
duplicated nodes have been corrected, but there are no overlapping buildings.

Look at this example from polish OSM user marcin_b:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.23935/21.04544

Great 3D model!

The data are too big for f4-maps. Use Kendzi3D or opensciencemap instead.
Rendered images:
http://skw.org.pl/mb/osm/osm3d-sn13.jpg
http://www.skw.org.pl/mb/osm/osm3d-sn02.jpg
http://www.skw.org.pl/mb/osm/osm3d-sn04.jpg
http://www.skw.org.pl/mb/osm/osm3d-sn05.jpg
http://skw.org.pl/mb/osm/osm3d-sn07.jpg
http://skw.org.pl/mb/osm/osm3d-sn08.jpg
http://skw.org.pl/mb/osm/osm3d-sn09.jpg
http://skw.org.pl/mb/osm/osm3d-sn10.jpg
http://skw.org.pl/mb/osm/osm3d-sn11.jpg
http://skw.org.pl/mb/osm/osm3d-sn12.jpg

a colleague made a quick fix for it to display

a lot of building:part are outside the building outline and so won’t display.

same problem for the ceiling, it’s too big compared to outline so it’s not included in the building. also outline includes a hole in the middle, explaining the loss of middle stuff!

for the part that looks like ceiling, it’s the outline leftovers, use building:part=no to remove it.

http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=52.2395797&lon=21.0463683&zoom=18&camera.theta=58.514&camera.phi=166.627

looks like there are the same problems on opensciencemap

http://opensciencemap.org/map/#&scale=17&rot=-4&tilt=49&lat=52.239&lon=21.045

insane level of details though ! :slight_smile:

looks good now ! :slight_smile:

Which editor has been used for that kind of tagging?

He used JOSM with Kendzi3d for preview.

Beautiful:
http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=54.7735798&lon=-1.5766062&zoom=19&camera.theta=45.859&camera.phi=-63.598

http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=3.1578288&lon=101.7138771&zoom=18&camera.theta=50.779&camera.phi=-87.376

Also Burj Khalifa : http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=25.2005512&lon=55.2742917&zoom=17&camera.theta=38.697&camera.phi=43.258

If you wish to find interesting buildings for 3D modeling, look into the www.skyscrapers.com

Good Example from India, Mysore Palace:

http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=12.3053845&lon=76.6546715&zoom=20&camera.theta=56.173&camera.phi=53.572

Good job :slight_smile:

Good job from Malaga:
http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=36.7319454&lon=-4.4358539&zoom=19&camera.theta=62.762&camera.phi=-87.663

Thanks!
Marek

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6032952

Dome of Siena. Still in progress:
http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=43.3184795&lon=11.3294446&zoom=19&camera.theta=65.054&camera.phi=-16.329

Looks really good.

I noticed that a lot of buildings (including the last one) are not connected to some high level relation. Is it just because of “work in progress”? I’m working on my generator for Unity3D and it is quite important to group all parts by one relation so that I can create one Unity’s GameObject instead of hundreds. This is major performance optimization f and also this way I can interact with the building as single mesh which is quite important from business logic. For example, I like this one:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3224486

With my generator, I’m able to create one mesh here instead of hundreds.

We’ve had a mapping party at Grozny city recently. And here’s a bit of results:
http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=43.3176756&lon=45.6940556&zoom=20&camera.theta=59.037&camera.phi=-165.871

Dear Felis Pimeja,
fantastic model, great job in Grozny!

Dear eis_kalt, that´s true, the Siena Cathedral is still in progress.
Could you be so nice and add your hint into the subpage: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings#Building_relation.
Maybe a link to an other Page with examples showing what happens with 3D model without building relation.

I think the existing text is clear enough, and mentioning examples of application-dependent behaviour would not improve it.

In fact, I believe that applications should not rely on the existence on the relation, given how a large number of 3D buildings already do not use a building relation. It’s not really a problem to algorithmically determine which building parts belong to a building. At this point, encouraging the use of the relations (except in the very few cases where they are actually necessary, e.g. overlapping buildings) only makes 3D mapping look more complicated than it actually is.

Agree, that application should not rely on existing relation. But I would consider not to have relation for multiple building parts as bad practice from two reasons:

  1. Relation provides the easy way to find all building parts and interact with them as single object (btw, what else can be used to find all parts for specific buildings?). This is useful for exporting building to some 3D modeling tool (e.g. blender) to perform further processing. Another example is from games: assigning specific action when collision with building is detected (for example, “you’ve just found Bundestag, destroyed White House” etc…).

  2. As I mentioned, performance. One example from my project which tries to generate city environment dynamically in Unity3D targeting mobile/VR devices. If there is no relation, then I have to render each part as separate object (GameObject in terms of Unity3D). However, it is costly: a lot of additional things are associated with each object. For example, physics specific (e.g. mesh collider) and app specific (e.g. scripts/behaviors).

All building parts must be geometrically inside the outline polygon (tagged building=*). This can be used to find out which parts belong to which building using a basic “is this geometry inside that polygon” test. The building outline then becomes the single “parent” object, with the name and other relevant information.

I believe this is only a problem if you don’t combine the building parts inside the outline to a single object. Of course, there is a one-time performance impact from the polygon tests, but the effect on physics calculations, scripts etc. you mention could be avoided just as they are with relations. It really makes no difference in that regard.

This sounds like “many to many relation” in terms of relative databases which is quite expensive to process and makes osm data parser more complex than it can/should be.

Anyway, thanks for information!