Real time 3D map using WebGL

Yep, it’s Simple 3d buildings and a first step to get away from the basic LOD1 extruded buildings that we had before.
As you might know, we collect our experiences/impressions from the practical tagging with the schema here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Simple_3D_Buildings
And some started to play with other approaches e.g. to describe roofs more detailed.
So there is no reason, why this shouldn’t result in a complex 3d buildings schema :wink:

Not sure if ''complete" is a good target, as describing 3d this way will always be a compromise between comfort of mapping/tagging and the level of details that you can realise.

Here I have to disagree with you, we currently don’t lack of wiki pages
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/3D
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/3D_Development
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Micromapping
IMHO currently it makes no sense to start a list for 3D tags beside buildings, as there are currently to much differences at OSM-3D, O2W Maps, F4, Kendzi on what is how interpreted (e.g. nature, city furnitures, materials, …)

Please check the thread backwards to find some problems. Mostly it’s the way how building:parts are mixed and support of all roof types.
A visual check can be done by having a look at the already tagged areas (even with support of our community)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings#Demo_areas

We had a bug that natural=stone lead to polygons being handled as monolith=alignment. It is already fixed internally and will be ok on further release.

Looks funny

height=235 (according to wikipedia it’s 235cm :p)

Hy, here some points about the map:

-Building=yes + roof:shape=mansard is still roof without building on the map:

http://map.f4-group.com/#lat=52.2215825&lon=10.5014853&zoom=19&camera.theta=56.838&camera.phi=149.026

-what about road markings on minor roads? I think they shouldn’t have markings

-And tombstones on amenity=graveyard is good looking, but (for me) i think there too much of them.

http://map.f4-group.com/#lat=52.2186492&lon=10.5021770&zoom=19&camera.theta=56.838&camera.phi=149.026

This is now fixed (wait for next release to see it on your own), it was an issue about giving shapes but neither height nor levels.

This is already under discussion on our support

Graves are added randomly every 2 to 6 meters, i think this is quite close to real life, anyway i’ll have a look on the randomizer configuration.

As there was no reply by the F4M staff on my S3DB compatibility request, I started a formal request on their support forum:
https://getsatisfaction.com/f4map/topics/compilance_to_the_s3db_schema
Anybody who feels like me is welcome to vote/discuss on the topic there :slight_smile:

I’m sorry i don’t find your request :confused:

I am following the Simple 3D Buildings talk page but i disagree with most of the “adding complicated stuff in S3DB” because (in my opinion) it wouldn’t be ‘simple’ anymore.

I already got in touch with Kendzi to try to get similar interpretations for skillion roof, height tags, roof shape algorithm… but we’re working with different data input, under different technologies with different constraints (Kendzi3D takes its data from JOSM, OSM2World process data on server side and covers only some dedicated spots of the world, F4Map partly process data in server side then stream it to the browser that generated geometries in real time).

I’m following this topic since i opened it, feel free to discuss here.

I’m sorry but there seems to be a misunderstanding:

  1. What I ask F4M for is to provide max. compatibility to the current S3DB schema and existing tools.
  2. The Talk page itself is collecting experiences from mappers to do further extensions to S3DB or a more complex one, as I pointed out before. But as this is still WIP, it would make no sense to add such kind of features (as they aren’t well discussed in the community).

P.S. Once more, here is the link to your support page, that somebody already replyed:
https://getsatisfaction.com/f4map/topics/compilance_to_the_s3db_schema
My 1st post concering this topic was just a few days ago in the same thread: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=364451#p364451

I am the F4 team 3D developper that replied on the getsatisfaction, talking about that here or on our getsatisfaction won’t change anything i’m still the same guy in front of my keyboard :smiley: (but talking here will involve more contributors)

What are we missing from S3DB except half-hipped roof ?

Btw i already filled the 3D tagging page with our supported tags.

Ah ok, I wasn’t aware that it’s the same person. I would suggest to splitup a seperated thead if you want to discuss this topic here, as I’m sure that the other devs don’t want to spend their time to scan all 5 pages for hints about incompatibilities :wink: I’m ok with your getsatisfaction also, as this topic is dedicated to F4M.

What I remember is that there were also problems with roof:shape=gambrel and esp. that you seem to use different defaults for various aspects (angles, …). And as I said, your building:part calculation seems still to cause some problems.
For a detailed report please start a seperated thread (and wiki page?) and make a call for participation to the community so we can check the demo areas between your and the other renderers.

Thats very kind of you, but this page was just for peaparing the 2. 3D Workshop in which result we created the S3DB out of this experiences.
So currently we don’t maintain a seperated 3D tagging catalogue.
What maybe would be very nice, if we can start a more general ‘micromapping’ catalogue (trees, city furnitures, …) to see what is also already supported. But I think this will get a really big list and I’m not sure if we can get any value of it (was what means ‘supported’ in each case?..).

Hi!
http://map.f4-group.com/#lat=59.9516088&lon=30.3079719&zoom=17&camera.theta=80&camera.phi=69.041

What does cause the problem?

I’m already working on this issue, it’s the “remove parts from outline” algorithm from Cactusbone that sometimes keep some edges as if they were not snapped.

I will try to detect and fix it on client-side.

If i got enough time today i’ll fill the demo areas links to F4 Map.

Could you switch off volume rendering of building outlines (building=yes), which have tag building:parts (building:parts= ) and don’t have tag building:part= (except building:part=no)? It can help to switch off volume rendering manually in cases, where tag building:parts had been already written by editor.

We did remove the volume for building:parts=yes but as it broke some stuff that were mapped for OSM2World we removed this test a few time ago.

del

But considering building=yes with tag building:parts= as a building, which has volume dividing to parts (building:part= ) is correct. If building doesn’t have volume dividing to parts, using of building:parts= is incorrect. Switching off the volume rendering of building, which has volume dividing to parts (building:part= ) is correct, isn’t it?

In other words, not every building with volume dividing to parts (building:part= ) has tag building:parts (building:parts=), but every building with building:parts= tag has volume dividing to parts (building:part= ) and we should switch off volume rendering of such building outlines.


This relation has building:part=roof, but your renderer shows its walls.

I think, it is a mistake.


As I see, man_made=chimney is rendered now, only of there is also tag building=yes, but there are ~11 000 man_made=chimney on nodes, and less then 2 000 on lines and areas. Less than 10% of man_made=chimney have combination with building=yes. What do you think about rendering all man_made=chimney even without building=yes? If we have man_made=chimney at node we can use some standard diameter for chimney, if we have man_made=chimney without height, we can use some standard height.

Buildings with building:parts=true aren’t extruded anymore.
building:part=roof are now handled like building=roof.
Check our changelog for more news :wink:

For now we can’t handle man_made=chimney without building=true as our building request is based on polygons so we can retrieve them the same way but we’ll think about that in further updates.

… by the way: your wiki seems to be flooded with spam,

see http://wiki.map.f4-group.com/wiki/Special:RecentChanges

I am sure there is a way to reduce new bot-driven users

Yeah, I know, I’m working on it, reCAPTCHA does not seem enough to stop the bots…