- From: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:21:15 +0200
- To: Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
- Cc: public-sdwig@w3.org
- Message-Id: <07CB79F6-CE47-4406-B69A-22308FB1AEFB@swirrl.com>
Thanks Scott! I'll take a look at those links. Much appreciated Bill > On 24 Oct 2017, at 20:38, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org> wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > The most comprehensive standard for representing city data is CityGML (http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/citygml and https://www.citygml.org/). The standard can represent all that you have described and can do so in different levels of detail, so everything from roofs or footprints to very detailed 3D models of everything in a building. > > Best Regards, > Scott >> On Oct 24, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com> wrote: >> >> Dear spatial data friends >> >> Just thinking about some spatial data in a city context and looking for pointers to the recommended approach or state of the art for representing 3D geometries in the spectrum of OGC standards? Presumably you can define a surface representing the 'top' of buildings, and another surface defining the 'ground'. What do you do if you want something more complex? Perhaps floors within a building, or surface, tunnels, flyovers etc? >> >> Thanks in advance for any good links or advice >> >> Best regards >> >> Bill >
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2017 19:21:43 UTC