and all other collegues.
I think we need 3rd specification meeting. We know already all pros and cons from S3DB and we all see, we need more.
I can organize the conference in Erlangen / Germany.
What do You think?
I don’t think my company will allow me to come to Germany to discuss about it, i think we could discuss in a new topic on this forum or in some wiki talk page.
Ok, You can get the results of the discussion and implement it or not.
My experience with 3D development is - not everything can be discussed in forum topics. I mean: the time You need to get the results is extremaly long.
AND: there is still danger of wrong interpretation between editors and ar result desorientation of the users.
But You´re right. I post this idea in the new topic.
Maybe there is no name for this kind of roofs. As descriped in the document in Point 7, these forms are grown up through the addition of extensions f.e.
The method ist very interesting an allows a lot of shapes to create. But it could be to specific for the OSM commuity. But I think even this kind of modelling has no possibility to create the roof that I have posted. Until now I’ve seen nowhere a 3D model for this roof.
The point is that there is a ridge which is not at the top of roof but splitted from the middle of one side. I fear even even the descriped process in the document would create a splitted roof.
Marek, with S3DB there are still lots things that need to be addressed on the implementation side before I would approach more advanced themes. This could be worked out on the wiki in my opinion. If there will be a meeting I might attend if time permits, but for future 3D development I’m staying a side-line viewer for now
things-change: the first part I mentioned as an example how one could extract a likely rectangle subdivision from the outline. the other part is to handle the constraint that the smaller roof must connect with its ridge to the edge of the main roof - with this constraint height of both roofs(parts) could be inferred automatically as there seems to be only one solution
cmif4: for my interpretation of an open dome no skeleton is needed. when the center is inside the inner ring:
1 connect lines from center to all points in outer ring
2 clip lines to building footprint
3 interpolate height along lines - this way the height is constant at the inner ring
I’ll try that soon
Though when center is not inside the inner ring (or there are more inner rings) things get more complicated. Then one could build the triangle mesh for the rounded dome shape (as usual) and then insert the lines from the inner rings, put all that in a constrained delaunay triangulation and filter out the triangles inside the hole afterwards.
As already said few post before, for now we don’t handle roof:shape when polygons have holes.
The building part http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/244031566 makes a hole on the outline when we merge building relation so outline roof shape is not handled.
I am currently working on buildings roof it should work in a few days, i already got dome, skillion and pyramidal working with holes (like the Pantheon in Roma).
Got it working locally, check out the screen below.
I’m working on straight skeleton aswell and i’m having some spectacular result on very complex shapes, but unfortunately it is very instable and it screws up very simple buildings that worked fine with the old method .
I’m also dealing with artifacts on buildings outlines incompletely used for rendering due to our “remove building:part from outline”, skeleton goes outside and does not really match the 3d shape…
Anyway there is a sample of how it looks on some spots:
cmif4,
please contact me.
I see, You´re very talented programmers. I teached architects geometry over 15 years.
There is an geometric approach for fixnix this problem, which is used by architect for construction of such building shapes.
.