Proposal talk:Window:shape

Window shapes

I think this is a nice proposal, as it's quite important to standardise micromapping-related tags — too many are ATYL without any guidance from the wiki. I think that this proposal does not include enough shapes, especially polygonal ones: triangular, pentagonal, hexagonal etc. I'd also add a "trapezoidal" one and think whether not to rename the semi-circular one (romanesque) to just "romanesque", as semi-circular windows also exist as a different sub-class, where they're rounded up until the base just like you took half of a circular window. --Rayleigh1 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I see what you mean about the difficulties with "semi-circular". I had changed it from "rounded" to that. I want to avoid using historical eras on the shape, even though those are common architectural terms and internationally understood. Maybe "round arch" would be an alternative? I've only added shapes I could remember from actually seeing, but there might be other shapes as well. I'll have to have a look at wikicommons for examples. I wouldn't want to go to high with the polygon numbers, though; where do you draw the line? At 12 or 24? I would think maybe "octagon" would be sufficient, from then on, circle could be applied. That's just my opinion, of course. B-unicycling (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Top/bottom shapes

OSM2World rendering; the 1st floor windows have window:top:shape=semicircle

Thanks for starting this proposal, I agree with the goals of standardizing on window:shape and on values clearly describing the geometry. I've previously started a draft for micromapping windows, and I've even implemented rendering support for these tags in OSM2World (see example rendering), but I never got around to turning this into an actual proposal. So I like that you're moving the documentation and standardization forward!

Your approach seems largely compatible with what I imagined, and I intend to update my code to consider the outcome of your proposal. One difference between our approaches, however, is that I'm supporting the combination of multiple tags such as window:shape=* and window:top:shape=*. The latter has values such as semicircle, arc or triangle.

To me, this approach has some benefits:

• The ability to combine multiple tags makes it easier to describe less common variants, e.g. with windows that aren't straight at the bottom and the sides, because you don't need to come up with a name for each possible combination.
• I also map the arrangement of panes, and it is very common for the top section of the window to have a separate arrangement from the main/central region of the window. (Of course, this is not a goal of your proposal, but perhaps it helps to understand why I arrived at this approach.)

What do you think? --Tordanik 16:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, even if the non-rectangular bases probably are very rare. As a default, window:shape=pointed would imply that the bottom is rectangular and only the top is pointed? Also, would you keep diamond as such or would you split that into top=triangle and bottom=triangle? I see where you're coming from with the arrangement of panes, but I agree that this is for another proposal, because it gets very complicated, when you think of church windows.B-unicycling (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What I did was assume "rectangle" as the default window:shape if window:top:shape=* but no window:shape=* is present, so that one would only need a single tag (window:top:shape=pointed) to describe a window with a pointed top and 3 straight sides. As for the diamond shape, that's probably common and straightforward enough to justify its own value even though one could indeed get the same result by combining several components. --Tordanik 21:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added a few more shapes that are commonly found on churches. I think we'll have to differentiate in the tagging depending on the symmetry, if you know what I mean. If they're horizontally and vertically symmetrical (or point-symmetrical like the trefoil), we won't need the window:top:shape=* and can just use window:shape=*. B-unicycling (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for extending the proposal! I one aspect that's still missing is that the same value may be used with either key – with different results. See the following possible examples for window:shape=triangle and window:shape=semicircle:

Also, I would be inclined to use "rectangle" as a window:shape value since the window as a whole is rectangular, even though the top is rectangular as well. --Tordanik 14:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Circular segment

Window topped with a circular segment

(I'm putting this in a separate section to hopefully reduce confusion.)

I would like to suggest an additional value: window:top:shape=arc or window:top:shape=circular_segment. (I have no strong opinion about the exact name.) I've found that a circular segment which doesn't form a full semicircle is a very common shape for the top of windows. --Tordanik 14:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)