Changeset: 139943408
Added surfaces to footpaths and roads around Samford Village, removed superfluous crossings on driveways where it crosses a footpath, not the other way around. Added some crossings + kerbs, updated tags from path to footway + sidewalk (where applicable)
Closed by _justanotherguy_
Tags
changesets_count | 241 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.26.2 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing Maps Aerial |
locale | en-AU |
Discussion
-
Comment from nevw
Hi
Multipolygons cannot be constructed as you have done.
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=152.88689&lat=-27.37132&zoom=19
You need to read up on multipolygon relation validity. - Comment from nevw
-
Comment from _justanotherguy_
Hey! Thank you for letting me know. You are completely right; I am not up to speed with creating multi-polygons. I was following this wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part#How_to_use and I completely misunderstood what the page was conveying. I've read though your linked wiki page, and others relating to mapping complex areas, and I've reconstructed the building in hopes of correcting this. If you could let me know if I have done so correctly, or if changes still need to be made, I would be most appreciative https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139963990
-
Comment from nevw
Hi
I am not very familiar with mapping buildings. The osm inspector (areas) picked up the problems because you used a multipolygon relation which appears ok now .
I expect that an easier way to map complex buildings is to use a type=building instead of type=multipolygon. I think the way to construct the various parts of the building allows for overlapping ways. You need one way encompassing the whole building and then all the parts fit inside, each with their own individual tags. All of these polygons, including the encompassing one and any holes (inner) go in as members of the relation.
I have not made myself familiar with building relations so I could be a bit mistaken.
But I think using multipolygon relations for mapping complex buildings is fine too.
I guess each is done with a differing method.
Which method you use is probably just a personal preference I guess and one may be more suitable certain types of building. -
Comment from _justanotherguy_
While reading up on the multi-polygons with buildings, I came across that type=building relation. It seemed to be more preferable when the building is complex, with a recommendation to just use a regular multi-polygon relation for simpler cases. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on which is best or preferred. I don't think this case merits construction using the type=building, so I will leave it if the OSM inspector is happy with multi-polygon. Thank you once again for your help and letting me know of the issue.
- 1198541301, v1
- 1198541302, v1
- 1198541303, v1
- 1198541304, v1
- 1198541305, v1
- 1198541306, v1
- 1198541307, v1
- 1198541308, v1
- 1198541309, v1
- 1198541310, v1
- 1198541311, v1
- 1198541312, v1
- 1198541313, v1
- 1198541314, v1
- 1198541315, v1
- 1198541316, v1
- 1198541317, v1
- 1198541318, v1
- 1198541319, v1
- 1198541320, v1
Relations (2)
- 11118208896, v1
- 11118208897, v1
- 11118208898, v1
- 11118208899, v1
- 11118208900, v1
- 11118208901, v1
- 11118208902, v1
- 11118208903, v1
- 11118208904, v1
- 11118215105, v1
- 11118215106, v1
- 11118215107, v1
- 11118215108, v1
- 11118215109, v1
- 11118215110, v1
- 11118215111, v1
- 11118215112, v1
- 11118215113, v1
- 11118215114, v1
- 11118215115, v1
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |