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)