We get elevation data for the entire world, you can see it everywhere check on some hilly spots like The French Alps.
Interesting, but height for the buildings on slopes has become ambigous:
Looks that some change in tagging scheme will be necessary.
We know that buildings are not so close to reality anymore when built on a sloppy spot.
For now buildings:parts are not aligned anymore with their “brothers”, we’re working on a fix to get every parts of a building inheriting from their outline building position.
A little buggy, but looking awesome!
That’s still some kind of “beta version” we got lot of work in progress stuff waiting to be released…
Sadly the SRTM is in to low resolution at least for my part of the world, so it looks more odd and a lot of details are missed
So there is still a need of getting a crowdsourced alternative, like http://www.opendem.info
As you started this thread with the intention to get feedback/interaction with the rest of the (3D) OSM community:
Personally, I would really like to please you, to work first on a maximum compatibility with other viewers esp. on the S3DB schema!
Even your visual progress is impressive (and as coder I understand, thats more interesting to work on bleeding edge features), it’s getting really worse for the whole community, if we get different ‘flavours’ of micromapping and everybody has a slightly different interpretation of our tags. If we (the 3D community) want to motivate other mappers to enrich their regions, we have to offer unique tagging guides, otherwise we will get very cluttered results, that are spread all over the world
I agree, but there is the problem that S3DB is a very basic minimum consensus. The world, (and the tagging, of course) is much more complex.
So you are right: We’re at the beginning of 3D-Mapping in OSM. When I fly true the F4 map all around germany, or around the world, there are very few buildings which have 3D tags.
I think, this is good: We see, what we tag, although we are just at the beginning. So we now have the chance to see the problems, to find solutions, and create a ‘complete’ tagging scheme.
So ‘we’ have to do our work. We have to create a Wiki-Page, that is standard, that is the base for all 3D tagging and that include all 3D tags. One starting page, an this has to be the base for all renderers.
So this is the 2nd step. But when I understand the post #11 by cmif4, the base for their rendering is the S3DB scheme.
What are the problems actually, where does f4 map differ from S3DB?
I’ve found, that natural=stone at areas (outlines of big stones) are rendered as areas with many small stones. I think, that is is incorrect rendering: areas with many stones are tagged with natural=bare_rock. Natural=stone - one stone.
Yep, it’s Simple 3d buildings and a first step to get away from the basic LOD1 extruded buildings that we had before.
As you might know, we collect our experiences/impressions from the practical tagging with the schema here:
And some started to play with other approaches e.g. to describe roofs more detailed.
So there is no reason, why this shouldn’t result in a complex 3d buildings schema
Not sure if ''complete" is a good target, as describing 3d this way will always be a compromise between comfort of mapping/tagging and the level of details that you can realise.
Here I have to disagree with you, we currently don’t lack of wiki pages
IMHO currently it makes no sense to start a list for 3D tags beside buildings, as there are currently to much differences at OSM-3D, O2W Maps, F4, Kendzi on what is how interpreted (e.g. nature, city furnitures, materials, …)
Please check the thread backwards to find some problems. Mostly it’s the way how building:parts are mixed and support of all roof types.
A visual check can be done by having a look at the already tagged areas (even with support of our community)
We had a bug that natural=stone lead to polygons being handled as monolith=alignment. It is already fixed internally and will be ok on further release.
height=235 (according to wikipedia it’s 235cm :p)
Hy, here some points about the map:
-Building=yes + roof:shape=mansard is still roof without building on the map:
-what about road markings on minor roads? I think they shouldn’t have markings
-And tombstones on amenity=graveyard is good looking, but (for me) i think there too much of them.
This is now fixed (wait for next release to see it on your own), it was an issue about giving shapes but neither height nor levels.
This is already under discussion on our support
Graves are added randomly every 2 to 6 meters, i think this is quite close to real life, anyway i’ll have a look on the randomizer configuration.
As there was no reply by the F4M staff on my S3DB compatibility request, I started a formal request on their support forum:
Anybody who feels like me is welcome to vote/discuss on the topic there
I’m sorry i don’t find your request
I am following the Simple 3D Buildings talk page but i disagree with most of the “adding complicated stuff in S3DB” because (in my opinion) it wouldn’t be ‘simple’ anymore.
I already got in touch with Kendzi to try to get similar interpretations for skillion roof, height tags, roof shape algorithm… but we’re working with different data input, under different technologies with different constraints (Kendzi3D takes its data from JOSM, OSM2World process data on server side and covers only some dedicated spots of the world, F4Map partly process data in server side then stream it to the browser that generated geometries in real time).
I’m following this topic since i opened it, feel free to discuss here.
I’m sorry but there seems to be a misunderstanding:
- What I ask F4M for is to provide max. compatibility to the current S3DB schema and existing tools.
- The Talk page itself is collecting experiences from mappers to do further extensions to S3DB or a more complex one, as I pointed out before. But as this is still WIP, it would make no sense to add such kind of features (as they aren’t well discussed in the community).
P.S. Once more, here is the link to your support page, that somebody already replyed:
My 1st post concering this topic was just a few days ago in the same thread: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=364451#p364451
I am the F4 team 3D developper that replied on the getsatisfaction, talking about that here or on our getsatisfaction won’t change anything i’m still the same guy in front of my keyboard (but talking here will involve more contributors)
What are we missing from S3DB except half-hipped roof ?
Btw i already filled the 3D tagging page with our supported tags.
Ah ok, I wasn’t aware that it’s the same person. I would suggest to splitup a seperated thead if you want to discuss this topic here, as I’m sure that the other devs don’t want to spend their time to scan all 5 pages for hints about incompatibilities I’m ok with your getsatisfaction also, as this topic is dedicated to F4M.
What I remember is that there were also problems with roof:shape=gambrel and esp. that you seem to use different defaults for various aspects (angles, …). And as I said, your building:part calculation seems still to cause some problems.
For a detailed report please start a seperated thread (and wiki page?) and make a call for participation to the community so we can check the demo areas between your and the other renderers.
Thats very kind of you, but this page was just for peaparing the 2. 3D Workshop in which result we created the S3DB out of this experiences.
So currently we don’t maintain a seperated 3D tagging catalogue.
What maybe would be very nice, if we can start a more general ‘micromapping’ catalogue (trees, city furnitures, …) to see what is also already supported. But I think this will get a really big list and I’m not sure if we can get any value of it (was what means ‘supported’ in each case?..).
What does cause the problem?