Closed ghost closed 3 years ago
@HarmenK I looked into this a bit. Do you know how to filter out such underground buildings?
Well, that depends on the BAG data you use. That's the first dataset I should look into: has a building an attribute where it says what it is or maybe if it is above the surface or is it subsurface? Otherwise, you can maybe determine it by a combination of a geographical and a statistical approach on buildings. For example, buildings crossing roads and having a lot of 'weird' or low height values (below 2 metres). Something like this maybe? I haven't done anything like that, these are some ideas. Love to hear how you solve it.
Okay, I was hoping that you have a solution :-) . Neither in the BAG, nor in the BGT are there attributes that identify underground buildings. In theory the relatieveHoogteligging
attribute in BGT could help, but in practice this is often not filled out or incorrect. As far as I know, Kadaster doesn't have a method for filtering out underground buildings either in their 3D model.
Thus only the hard way remains. I need to think more about this, as it seems non-trivial to find all (most) of the cases. I leave the issue open, because I agree with you, underground buildings shouldn't get a positive height in the 3D BAG.
Ok, so I would suggest a topographical check, like buildings on top of each other or overlapping with roads, parks and so on. But therefore you should have some use cases to create a solution and to validate.
Maybe we can collect in this thread some examples or find them by a geographical query
Rijswijk train station is mostly underground and does intersect other buildings. Its id: 0603100000015741
.
Repo closes because it has been superseded.
I have found at least one issue regarding an underground building that has a 'positive' height. Maybe 'underground buildings' should have been filtered out of the BAG dataset before heights are calculated?
Example: Marktgarage, Delft : Willem Naghelstraat 1, 2612 XD Delft