If it is wrong, then improvements should be made to it instead of removal of data.

You are willfully deleting real data that is verifiable and on the ground. Checks by discussing with the you yielded no valid reason for removal thus it was reverted.

Please feel free to clarify this with DWG.

And in addition, static objects like the flyer wheel can be an object itself. This is correct.

In case you are not aware, this is not referring to OSM 3D parts (tagged using building:part=yes). 3D parts are valid data that does not affect Mapnik / Carto-OSM. In addition, there is no manipulation of data to suite Mapnik and the representation is correct.

More examples, OSMBuildings (via Mapbox).
https://osmbuildings.org/examples/vectortiles/#16.7/1.289655/103.863477/-28/60

Just an example from other 3D maps without 3D model support.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8ey1JGuU16EKPdJ8

If 3D parts are removed, these will simply be missing from the maps. The correct fix is to either improve the 3D details using 3D building parts, or to inform F4 to put in a bigger exclusion zone for 3D building parts.

The wheel itself is considered part of the building. Thus, I believe the wheel itself should be merged into the flyer wheel building to be more accurate.

3D building parts by themselves are already a form of mapping for 3D renderer, but these tags are not used for the base map renderer. Thus, it is explicit that these are already mapping for a 3D renderer and a well-accepted practice to add additional details for 3D renderer worldwide.

F4Maps in this case utilises an external 3D model. However, for basic maps without support for external 3D models, removing such details instead of improving the 3D details means that you are taking away data from other maps that only supports the basic 3D model.

If you are trying to fix the artifacts in F4, you should contact F4 and ask them to exclude a bigger area while injecting the actual 3D model. Removing 3D representation just to fix F4 only removes 3D details from other maps without support for 3D models (such as OSMBuildings, MapsWithMe, etc.).

Hi,

Are you able to describe how's the 3D implementation being totally wrong? The previous scheme had the wheel outline tagged as a building, with the 3D parts tagged as building:part. I fail to see how is that incorrect.

In addition, I am also not able to understand which specific part is "tagging for the renderer". Are you able to further elaborate?

Thanks.

Hi,
Why are you removing 3D building parts?

Hi,

Some buildings are tagged without building levels, but with building levels placed in building:part instead.

This changeset includes building:levels for both the building and building:part tags. However, this had the effect of overriding the effects of building parts containing detailed level information with a single large block based on the building outline, with the end result being a less detailed 3D view instead of a detailed building with various different height levels for 3D.

That's great! The changes made it much better for consistency and for applications that require more accurate data.

Hi,
The problem is I have is that residential buildings, driveways are also covered in this park. If the park covers only the grass patches and the footpaths, it will be much better. If we apply your tagging conventions across all residential estate, we might as well cover the whole of the island in parks everywhere.
osm.org/way/553716262

In the interests of consistency across all other residential estates, are you able to revise the park area? Alternatively, do you have any special rational or applications that require the use of such tagging?

Regards, JaLooNz

Dear HANZXC,
Are you able to revise your park such that it does not overlap any buildings?

Hi David,
Any rational for the park covering the entire estate?

Hi,
I believe it is unlikely that there is a polyclinic park that overlaps the building. Are you able to revise this?
Thanks.

The landuse=forest seems to be removed in this changeset.

Are you able to verify if this fitness corner/park overlaps these buildings?

There is something wrong with this changeset. The park definitely does not cover the whole of a residential neighbourhood. Are you able to verify if this is correct?

Shouldn't these be marked as trunk_link instead?

Why was Dhoby Ghaut split into 2 different station nodes? Dhoby Ghaut is a 3 line interchange.