File talk:Minlevel.svg

Building Levels wrong

note that building:levels in this picture is wrong! If you count building levels you don't count voids outside the building. You only count the actual levels inside the building. -- Dieterdreist 12:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But that is how it is already used in meny renderers - you can think about it as index of last level (7) and index of first missing level (5), therefore 2 real levels remaining.

If you think it should be done differently, it would be necessary to change it on all wiki pages, then email all authors of software that have something to do with 3D and OSM and then fix it in the OSM (roughly 1000 buildings)

--Bilbo 19:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just one note: if you want to change meaning of levels and min_levels, I suggest using different name (building:lowest_level + building:highest_level / building:skipped_levels + building:number_levels, etc ... ) for the new meaning to aviod ambiguity (some people already get used to old tag names and old meaning) --Bilbo 19:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure I get your last comment right, Bilbo: do you actually suggest that Dieterdreist introduce new tags into OpenStreetMap in order to solve this problem? Shouldn't introducing new tags be be discussed on a higher level before it is done instead of being something that just anyone should do when they feel like it? —Kri (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You can use any tags you like. Anybody can. Alv (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so there is at least a set of official Map Features and a proposal process; that definitely sounds like a more sustainable strategy. :) —Kri (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Levels and heights don't agree

Can someone explain to me how the building properties in this image are supposed to be interpreted? First, the article explains that the height of the building is estimated as 3 m times the number of levels whenever the latter is given (or whenever building:levels:aboveground is given), but for the buildings in the image the height is not 3 m times the number of levels, which in this case is 21 m, but 24 m. Second, the middle building (which starts 5 levels up) should logically be 6 m high, since 2 levels (7 minus 5) times 3 m per level is 6 m, while in reality it is 8 m high since the difference between building:min_height and building:height is 8 m. Can anyone explain to me how this fits together? —Kri (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The "3 m" is just a hint for data users, if no height data is tagged. As in "if you make a 3D model, 3 m is probably the best estimate". Alv (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. But in this specific case, how are the different levels supposed to be positioned within the buildings, and how are they supposed to line up between the buildings? Is there something that specifies this? Because to me it seems like in the building in the middle, the floors are 8 m/2 = 4 m high each, while in the other two building the levels are 24 m/7 = 3.43 m high each, and then they will definitely don't line up (apart from being unreasonably high, at least in the middle building) so a rendering will look very crappy. —Kri (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)