Distinct 3D and 2D map easier
Little proposal for mapping 3D building: If the building is simple (house, tower) and just need to map the roof, enter building:levels in the building tags. But Is the building is complex (different level) just map the building and enter the building:levels in building:part and don't enter the main building as building:part
Why? because for routing apps, for example, if lightweight map are needed it is easier to remove all the relation with the tag building:part.
- It sounds to me like you're describing the Simple 3D buildings schema? If not, you should probably clarify your idea and take it to that page. Neuhausr (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- When ou have a look to Empire State Building the base is map as building:part and in my proposition only 3D part should have the key building:part, not the base. This could help when export the data: it's easier to make the distinction beetween 2D and 3D building.
- That's incorrect tagging, though. Right now, the tagging tells me that the Empire State Building has 5 levels total and is 17 meters high... --Tordanik 19:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's a problem then, because it's one of the example provided... another problem is a difference in building interpretation by 3D software, have a look to OSMBuildings and F4map the roof interpretation differ while it's the same building, then how can is choose the correct 3D mapping ? --Homer simpsons (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)