A lot of things is going on in this thread, and I have been stuck with the companie Christmas party 😉 To make this short.
Thanks Elliot for the article, Thanks Chris and David for all the posts, and thanks for the comment Matt.
So what I did, was that I gave my points values depending on the height from each other e.g. Center point Highest = 100 Center point Not the highest, but higher than the lowest 50 points, and lowest 0 point. I did the same with left ,front, right and back points, but ass follow 10, 5, 0.
So a gable roof would get 120 point, Hip 100, flat 0, Shed 70, what I call a half_hip (half gable half hip) 110. Then I stretched the points out until it was close to overlap another roof form, in case one pint was hitting a window or something.
I took 500 building polygons and visually assigned the prober roof form to the building attributes. I then created a report in CE to see how many of the roofs I was hitting correctly. I did not choose the easy roofs for this, but I took everything where I could visually get a meaning of overwhelming roof type. (See picture)
So here is the result:
- 76.91 % of the roof forms, I was calculating correct.
Within the 76.91 % I had -
2.06 % was marked as known issues (meaning there was too much variance between the points.
So far I’m very happy with the result. It could be fun to go the other way around, and see why I calculated some roofs wrong, but I don’t think I can get a better result procedural anyway. If I change some parameters, it will probably affect other buildings. If my building polygons, was dawned better, split’ up by year I would probably get a better result.