rescue mission: sketchup models


this is about FOSSGIS 2014 discussion about a common building repository.
Would be great to have participants gatehred here and ideally put the minutes here as well.

During Hackweekend I had a look into sketchup 3d warehouse to get an idea what are the minimum requirements to get us started.

From front end side, the picture is quite clear.
But we need to tackle backend as well and as it turns out there are some administrative issues to be solved.

My findings so far.


  • Index page of popular / latest models
  • Detail page of a model
    • title
    • text description
    • ext. link
    • tags => should allow OSM tags too
    • quick userinfo / avatar => should refer to OSM User
    • static picture, 3d viewer, position on map
    • model stats
    • few sharing options => start slowly here
    • download, embedding
    • similar models, related collections => slowly too
  • User page => maybe differently because of OSM user info
    • own models
    • own collections
  • Search function + result gallery => as simple as possible for the beginning
  • Upload form if logged in => simple
  • User Login => OSM OAuth

Administrative issues:

  • Domain name: can we take over openbuildingmodels? what about OpenMapObjects…
    => it’s not only about buildings! FOSSGIS should own the domain

  • there are serious legal issues, see (8.)
    => idea: Andreas, what about designing the Sketchup exporter plugin in a way, that it visually(!) creates a clone of an object and uploads that clone?

All for now,


That sounds like a great analysis. The primary emphasis would be on functionality (ie. provide downloads and API under free licenses for open projects), we don’t need to compete against or clone 3dwh.
Using OSM tags makes sense.

As for the ToS of the new Trimble 3D Warehouse:
This sounds like serious issues and I know it only since a month ago (that section was not in the old 3dwh). The product manager told me that this section (“made available on the Warehouse by or on behalf of Google Inc.”) deals with models created and owned by Google, ie. by Google’s own modeler teams. These masses of gray models (example) are not interesting for us, and it seems they are working on removing them. Section 8 of the ToS is supposed to exclude all geolocated or not-geolocated models created and made available by users. I don’t know if a lawyer could understand it the same way as Trimble’s lawyers say. As a normal person I think this section needs to be expressed more clearly.

Great! I love the name OpenMapObjects!

I can’t follow. Why should (8) be any problem for us?
For me, the main “problem” stems from the fact, that the models are geolocated. This is similar to the “problem” Tordanik noted in the meeting. He said, that there are persons arguing that if you geolocate something via OSM it inherits ODbL.
However, regardings Warehouse-models: One could simply remove the geolocation information from the object and redo it based on OSM data. I don’t see this different to using streetview images for texture data: The model stays free, you just need to remove/replace the textures.