Well, like it was pointed out to me in another thread, you made the exact same mistake: We don’t tag for the renderer. height=0.1 is exactly that. The correct height of that building is 90.3 and so it should be tagged like this. Maybe add an building:shape=pyramid as well and it might look a little bit more like in real and it also reflects the reality way more. Another idea is, create building:part=yes and, one thats exact the shape of the whole building with a small height and a pyramide for the bottom one. And a smaller building:part=yes for the centered one for the whole height.
And if i see it correctly you should add a min-height as well, because its not on the ground as well.
I personally would just add the building:shape=pyramid.
If you want to see a mast in detailed 3D, you have to invent an appropriate scheme and/or talk with the maintainer of the 3D-Renderer. Using building tags for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmast (or similar) is tagging for the renderer.
Seems like its working in osmbuildings right now. For f4map - i would ask f4map, why they don’t.
(Btw. i completely missed that the tower is tagged already completely and in detail for 3d. Just thought you want a easy solution so it looks a bit like. Thats why i suggested shape=pyramid)
Maybe the elements should be grouped in a relation or something? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/479510854
Do "building:part"s need a relation type=building or [building=yes] to be visible?
Sorry, but I think that’s a bad idea.
Everyone who want to show only “real” buildings will get other stuff like that sculpture.
We could establish a own group of 3D-Elements like “3d:part=" or "man_made:part=” and you translate this in your source in “building:part=*” if you want to add it in a simply way.
Offering something like 3d:part=* is an interesting idea. There’s a bit of a tendency for people map objects such as sculptures or bridge piers as buildings in order to be able to represent them with S3DB tagging. We probably want a solution for this that does not involve mapping for the renderer so that other data consumers aren’t negatively affected.
Of course, I’m not sure if the prism-with-a-roof philosophy of S3DB is a good general-purpose 3D modelling approach for OSM – thoughts on that? (Something like the Gundam would arguably be more suited for the 3D Model Repository, but that hasn’t taken off so far.)