tower height

There is a tower which was mapped in 3D and looked exactly like it is.
This is how it looks in real:,foto.html?o=b8807

Some time ago a new user changed the tower height from 0.1 to its actual height: 90.3.

and after the change, it looked like this:

height=0.1 is neccessary for 3D tagging because without it, it looks like in the picture above.

So I reverted his change.

OSM feature:

Then another user removed building=yes and changed height=0.1 to height=90.3.
Now it completely disappeared from 3D view:

What is the solution? How to solve this issue?

Looking at the photo, tagging height=90.3 is what the wiki says it’s ok.

Now you tagged as man_made=tower.
Maybe a better tagging is man_made=mast.

If you want that a 3D render looks like the photo, you should map a more representative 3D model. See for examples.

I rewrote my post, please read it again.

Well, like it was pointed out to me in another thread, you made the exact same mistake: We don’t tag for the renderer. height=0.1 is exactly that. The correct height of that building is 90.3 and so it should be tagged like this. Maybe add an building:shape=pyramid as well and it might look a little bit more like in real and it also reflects the reality way more. Another idea is, create building:part=yes and, one thats exact the shape of the whole building with a small height and a pyramide for the bottom one. And a smaller building:part=yes for the centered one for the whole height.

And if i see it correctly you should add a min-height as well, because its not on the ground as well.

I personally would just add the building:shape=pyramid.

This Objekt isn’t a building. So that was correct. If 3D-Renderer doesn’t show this, it’s another problem.

There isn’t such tag on OSM, it is used only 19 times.

So no one has ever drawn a tower in 3D on OSM? If so, could you give some examples?

And yet i used it 3 times and it works in and in So why should he not use it? It is not wrong either. Specifically and with and

I might rework that building as a whole, but this part will stay because it is true.

EDIT: And, building:shape=* is used more often already. here a link.

For whatever reason it works - the correct Tag is roof:shape=pyramidal.

Many towers (e.g. city wall) are buildings :wink:

If you want to see a mast in detailed 3D, you have to invent an appropriate scheme and/or talk with the maintainer of the 3D-Renderer. Using building tags for (or similar) is tagging for the renderer.

Oh, ok. But I think it will draw a pyramid, like in these examples, and my tower isn’t a pyramid.

I don’t want to draw anything in 3D, becasue it is already done with all the details. I just want to see the tower again in 3D, what should I do?

Seems like its working in osmbuildings right now. For f4map - i would ask f4map, why they don’t.

(Btw. i completely missed that the tower is tagged already completely and in detail for 3d. Just thought you want a easy solution so it looks a bit like. Thats why i suggested shape=pyramid)

Maybe the elements should be grouped in a relation or something?
Do "building:part"s need a relation type=building or [building=yes] to be visible?

Ok, thank you :slight_smile: Let me know.


Yes they do !

However in this specific case i think this is a man_made=mast and not a building. so using building:part is indeed tagging “for the renderer” (

Maybe we should allow the use of “building:part” for man_made and sculture tags (for the gundam

Any thoughts ?

? See:

Sorry, but I think that’s a bad idea.
Everyone who want to show only “real” buildings will get other stuff like that sculpture.

We could establish a own group of 3D-Elements like “3d:part=" or "man_made:part=” and you translate this in your source in “building:part=*” if you want to add it in a simply way.

Offering something like 3d:part=* is an interesting idea. There’s a bit of a tendency for people map objects such as sculptures or bridge piers as buildings in order to be able to represent them with S3DB tagging. We probably want a solution for this that does not involve mapping for the renderer so that other data consumers aren’t negatively affected.

Of course, I’m not sure if the prism-with-a-roof philosophy of S3DB is a good general-purpose 3D modelling approach for OSM – thoughts on that? (Something like the Gundam would arguably be more suited for the 3D Model Repository, but that hasn’t taken off so far.)

Because someone said building:shape=* is not valid - osmbuildings check for it. What shapes are supported?


Yeah sorry, I answered too quickly, there’s no need for a relation, but a [building=something] polygon is mandatory, and should contains all parts.

Did you ask them? What did they answer?

What do you mean by “should contains all parts”?

All the building parts should be included (2d wise), as in overlap the geometry, of the outline (the polygon with building=something).

My guess is he meant for you to ask.

For now F4Map only loads parts for buildings, so if it’s tagged man_made=tower, we’re rendering only the outline up to the designated height.