Talk:Proposed features/building:parts

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is a building interception?

Can you explain or maybe change this wording so that it becomes understandable? --Dieterdreist 10:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure, that word "interception" is the best one. The meaning is "the part of plane (plane - "a flat surface extending infinitely in all directions (e.g. horizontal or vertical plane)"), which cut building". Perhaps, words "section" or "cross-section" are better. It will be good, if someone, for whom English is native, will understand meaning and check appropriate word. Dinamik 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
"Intersection" is the common term in geometry I guess. --j3d (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Section is the term in architecture, if I understand this correctly. Technically, a plan drawing is a “horizontal section.” Michael Z. 2014-10-22 16:33 z

Too similar with other tags in use

IMHO this key should be deprecated because there is the risk of confusion with building:part=* --Dieterdreist 10:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For example, we have tags highway=service and highway=services. What tag do you propose instead of building:parts? Dinamik 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
What kind of logic is that? "There's shit elsewhere in the project so I can add more shit?" Just because there is one pair of easily confusable tags which are badly named doesn't mean we need more of that. --Frederik Ramm 09:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
What about 'partition', 'partitionMethod', 'partitioning' or something in the vein? --eslosm 19:20, 20 May 2012 (BST)

This should be a proposal page

It is common practice to reserve Tag: and Key: pages to those attributes that are somewhat established (= either accepted proposal or a de-facto standard). This tag is currently just an idea and has not yet been used a lot. So it really should be on a proposal page instead of a Key: page. --Tordanik 20:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved. --Frederik Ramm 09:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of the tag

I see why you would want to map building parts as either horizontal, vertical or mixed slices (I regularly do this myself). However, I do not really understand what the building:parts tag is for. Isn't it already clear from the outline and tags of the building:part areas how they are arranged? --Tordanik 00:50, 24 April 2012 (BST)

The main idea if this tag is in phrase "Not all software can readily consume building parts modelled in all three ways, so this tag building:parts can be added on the building outline (not its parts)". For example, software can work normally only with buildings, mapped as horizontal "slices". It should find the tag building:parts=vertical or building:parts=mixed and understand, that it is better even not to try to draw such building. Dinamik 21:38, 24 April 2012 (BST)
Do I understand correctly that the tag should only be a hint for a renderer for whether it might be able to interprete the building:part[s] within a building?--j3d (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I also second this interpretation and made is clearer on Key:building:part--Jojo4u (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the clarification. However, software can already find out whether a building contains vertically/horizontally sliced building parts by simply looking at those building parts. So based on my experience developing a 3D renderer, this tag is not helpful. Worse, it also causes confusion and leads mappers to waste their time on doing machines' work. Can we not make mapping a building in 3D more effort than it needs to be, please? --Tordanik 17:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I also agree: If a software is not able to parse building:parts, it should just fail gracefully. There is no need to give hints.--Jojo4u (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Status of proposal

Looking at http://taghistory.raifer.tech/ the tag is quite in use (reaching although only 1% of building:part) so setting as abandoned seems to be no option. There are some possibilities. What should be done to understand the proposal: Post on some channels and ask with data customer actually uses this.

Then:

  1. Leave as is
  2. Mark as abandoned nevetheless
  3. Do a "inofficial" vote here on talk and put warning info boxes on affected pages.
  4. Just adopt the proposal and vote on it

I would do 2nd if not used and 4th if used. --Jojo4u (talk)

Given the lack of activity surrounding this proposal, and the fact that this does not add meaningful information as discussed above, I've decided to proceed with setting this to abandoned. --Tordanik 17:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)