Changeset: 151251769
Changed overhead passage to type building to render on map
Closed by Markalex2209
Tags
changesets_count | 239 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.29.0 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Orthophoto (2016–2018), 1:5000, Latvia |
locale | en-GB |
Discussion
-
Comment from HellMap
Hi!
Just a note that you should not change any objects solely to render on the default map. OSM is used by many maps and data consumers and what is rendered or parsed is different. For example, tagging this as a separate building means that the data now contains a separate building here (even if it looks like one on the default map).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
I adjusted here to how building "air corridors" like this are usually tagged. Depending on which building it is part of - that building would include this shape and then the part itself duplicating the contour can specify how it's different.
Notably for levels/floors OSM maps this a little confusingly, but this is a 2 level building that starts at the second level - `building:levels=2` and
`building:min_level=1`. -
Comment from Markalex2209
Thanks for correcting!
I had same exact problem with somewhat similar "air corridor" here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/475617182I fixed it in a similar way, as you explained.
I still fill a bit confused regarding path underneath. Once I extended building and added building part, path had warnings. I think (but not really sure for now) that warning gone away once I placed points of separation of the path (for `covered=yes`) onto the contour of the building. But I'll figure this out.
Thanks again for you guidance!
-
Comment from HellMap
Sure thing!
Warnings will happen, but they are just warnings - if the tagging and geometry are correct, then they can be ignored. The iD editor is not very good with complex situations with levels and building parts and often complains about stuff and offers incorrect fixes. Technically, the points do not connect to the building, because they are on different layers (and obviously do not connect in real life), but this is when the editor starts complaining - it does not understand that a building part on a different layer implies that the building itself in that location does not overlap anything. Building parts in particular are complex, because they "override" the building shape, but almost no tools out there (except 3D renderers) really understand this.
-
Comment from Markalex2209
Not great. As a novice in tagging, I try to err on side of caution. And when I see warnings, I assume that it's my fault, not editor's (except for obviously ignored by somebody else previously warnings, like happens a lot with crossings).
-
Comment from richlv
The standard and documented practice (for example, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dbuilding_passage ) is to have shared nodes where ways pass buildings in this way.
-
Comment from HellMap
Yeah, it's not great. But warnings are technically not errors. So you don't HAVE to follow them - the software doesn't always know.
By the way, most crossing warnings can be fixed - these are more like "upgrades". The crossing tagging scheme was standardized not too long ago and most crossings are using the older imprecise style. You shouldn't bulk update them, but if you are updating the area, then feel free to upgrade them.
Just a side note - other editors like JOSM or many validation tools (you can toggle some on in the editor data layers) will show a LOT more warnings, errors, hints, etc. There are so many no one will ever be able to fix it all, so it's just something we have to live with. This isn't even mentioning that mappers don't actually agree on how many things should be drawn or tagged, even for what seems like basic significant features.
-
Comment from HellMap
@rich: True building passages where the way goes *through* (like many Soviet apartment blocks have around her) are indeed generally connected and this doesn't stop routing. This here isn't a building passage but a sky bridge. It's more similar to a bridge area - you wouldn't connect it there or you will end up connecting different layers - like a lower path to a bridge railing - this would break routing. So if one were to map something more than just a building wall/part, then such a connection would be problematic. It usually isn't and which is why I said it's "technically" incorrect, but practically fine for most cases. I left them connected here myself when adjusting the building part.
Ways (1)
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 |