I understood this part:
As: a building:part consists of walls and the roof above those walls.
These examples are different from the previous, as now we have: ‘building=yes’, while with previous ones we had ‘building:part=yes’.
Can it be said that similarly with ‘building:part=yes’, the ‘building=yes’ is by definition also consistsed of walls and the roof above those walls?
Correct.
I added building=yes, because building:part can’t exist without being enclosed into *building=**.
The same rules applies to a building if it doesn’t have any building part inside it.
A question (another one, sorry):
Which same rule? This one:
?
What happens if a building (outline) has at least one building part inside it?
You wanted to say, that regardless of whether a closed way has a building part(s) inside, it (that closed way) always has to be tagged with ‘building=yes’ in order to be considered to be the building (outline)? Is that it?
If it is, then I apologize for my stupid question.
If it is not?
As for the Simple 3D buildings article: I somehow have a feeling that is very short. I am not sure who wrote it, but it definitively needs to be extended.
In the last couple of topic on this forum, I learned more from your, escada, hadw and R0bst3r and other users replies then by reading that short article.
We even found out that there is important information which is not included in any wiki.openstreetmap article, let alone the Simple 3D buildings one.
Please do not take this reply as offensive, nor my intention to act as a ‘smart-ass’. I am very grateful for your free time, knowledge and patience. I am just trying to learn something, and I am getting frustrated with the lack of articles/learning material. That’s why I am trying to ask all these picky, or stupid-sounded questions.
Does upper quote apply to building outlines as well (tagged with: ‘building’)?
So both a building outline (tagged with ‘building’) and a building part (tagged with ‘building:part’) consist of walls and the roof above those walls?
Exactly.
Thank you vvoovv.
Can I again try to solve the previous two examples you gave me?
For the start, the first example:
You told me previously that:
So this is it:
?
So we know that there are walls beneath the roof, because min_height is equal to 0 (it’s not defined therefore it’s equal to 0), and the roof starts from 8 meters above the ground. So this empty space from 0 to 8 meters above the ground is assumed to be “filled” with walls?
Yes.
So the first task is solved correctly.
Now the second task.
Thank you for the reply!
Second example:
so it is assumed that walls exist from the min_height to height where roof starts (that is 12 meters above ground). Like this:
?
Correct!
Congratulations with passing the test!
Thank you for the reply vvoovv.
Your hints solved both examples. I couldn’t solve them on my own.
Do you mind if I ask additional question, please?
So both building outline and building parts are consisted of two parts:
a) walls
b) roof, which is above the walls. If shape of the roof is not defined (‘roof:shape’ tag), then it is always assumed that the roof is flat.
The walls always start at the ‘min_height’. They end at ‘height’ - ‘roof:height’?
Everything is correct.
Actually it’s up to an application what to do if roof:shape isn’t set.
Thank you.
Can you be more precise on this please?
An application may assume that the roof is flat if roof:shape isn’t set.
Or treat it smarter. For example roof:shape=gabled in a rural area and roof:shape=flat in an urban one.
Very nice explanation.
Thank you once again vvoovv! You are answers have definitively improved my understanding of some of OSM tags and concepts!
Sorry if this post may be a bit unusual, don’t want to be impolite just wondering more and more. This endless series of sophisticated questions that no normal person would be able to come up with is too weird. Not just this thread but also many others. Also considering the complete lack of natural logic and understanding, yet plowing on and on and on into tiniest details. Without being forced to by an employer or anyone. Is it even possible this is real?? Is this perhaps some sort of self-learning artificial intelligence experiment? Or perhaps some psychological study using an internet group? Some other alien reason? Have never seen anything even remotely like this.
Hi wycbtma,
Coming from a non GIS background, and literally not knowing anything about OSM may affect these questions a bit.
They are also affected by my inability to find the already made OSM wiki articles, or them not being included in the articles.
Some of them may also be specific to OSM 3d renderers, which is another reason why they may looking strange, as they are not that common for 2d renderers. I have just learned that in this topic. In the end they may also reflect the level (lack) of my brain’s capacity to understand features that may be easier for other users to understand.
Guess most people tend to rather pick as a hobby things that are easier for themselves as for others, at least for such laborious long-time hobbies. Anyway, thank you for replying!
Thank you for your help with my previous question wycbtma!