Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Harmonize enum of trafficDirection with CityGML 3.0 #107

Closed
clausnagel opened this issue Jan 18, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed

Harmonize enum of trafficDirection with CityGML 3.0 #107

clausnagel opened this issue Jan 18, 2022 · 2 comments
Milestone

Comments

@clausnagel
Copy link
Contributor

From the few predefined attributes of "CityObjects", the attribute "trafficDirection" defined for "_AbstractTransportationWay" is also defined in CityGML 3.0 for AbstractTransportationSpace. Both are defined as enum but the allowed values do not match: In CityJSON 1.1, one may use "one-way" and "two-way" whereas the values are restricted to forwards, backwards and both in CityGML 3.0.

It would be great to harmonize the allowed values in order to make data conversions easier. Maybe by simply adding the CityGML values to the enum in CityJSON?

@hugoledoux hugoledoux added this to the 1.1.1 milestone Jan 18, 2022
@hugoledoux
Copy link
Member

I had forgotten about that property, I guess in the spirit of CityJSON v1.1 I should just remove it, no?

You wrote "From the few predefined attributes of "CityObjects"", but if I am not mistaken this is the only one (except the "location" for the position of the entrance door). Am I missing something?

So either (1) remove the enum, or (2) add the v3 ones to the list. I would vote for (1) personally, you?

@clausnagel
Copy link
Contributor Author

clausnagel commented Jan 18, 2022

I was also counting "children_roles" for CityObjectGroup although it's different because it's outside "attributes".

I agree that removing "trafficDirection" is in the spirit of CityJSON v1.1. So, I second your proposal to resolve this issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants