Covered walkways (porticoes/colonnades) and building outlines

[eastwest]

The photo shows what I think is a pretty typical design for many strip shopping centers, where there is a covered walkway in front of the businesses' entrances. If I understand Google's guidelines for building outlines, the shape should be drawn only to where the (in this case, glass) walls touch ground. However, I'd be willing to bet that nine (or more) times out of ten, when these buildings are drawn their boundaries extend to the full width of the roofline -- if for no other reason than that we can't see where the walls are from overhead. So are we all in violation? Is this something to worry about? Or does it really matter? In another discussion (which I'm too lazy to find now), it was mentioned that perhaps the guideline should be changed to follow the building's foundation rather than to say "no overhangs." That would seem to work better for structures such as the example here, no?

[Flash]

I was the one that mentioned that they really mean foundation rather than footprint; this covered walkway is part of the footprint.  But you are right, I don't think Google wants us to include them.  I recently outlined a bunch of buildings in our old downtown; and a few days later one of the GRs on the team that checks recent edits editted some of them.  He must have used street view, as he brought in the boundaries of any like this but left the rest as I had originally done them. 

[Chaitanya Sri]

Hi eastwest & Flash,

Yes, you are correct. Please omit the overhangs, railings, covered walkways etc. from the building outline.

Thanks,
Chaitanya Sri

[Flash]

Hi Chaitanya,

Could you contribute some feedback to the people responsible for the help files?  What is confusing many of us that actually have real world knowledge is the wording that says "building footprint".  What actually needs to be said is "foundation" instead of "footprint".  Several of us that are in the industry have discussed this in other threads, and we all agree that things like this overhang are part of the footprint.  Therefore, by the current wording of the guidelines, this overhang should be mapped!

[eastwest]

I just had a thought -- what's the difference between a covered walkway like this and a parking garage -- which can be thought of as covered driveways for cars? Yet parking garages are drawn to the full extents, so why not covered walkways?

[Flash]

Well there's an example of where defining it as the foundation would make the difference.  A parking garage would have the foundation right out to the edge.  This building likely has a foundation out to the wall, and then those posts that support the overhand are on footings only.

[eastwest]

Wait. I'm confused. I thought you said the foundation here went out to the full width of the covered walkway? (Well, you said "this covered walkway is part of the footprint.") So, Google's opinions aside, do you think this building should be drawn to the glass walls or out to the covered walkway?

[Flash]

It can be confusing :)  What should be drawn is whatever Google says; it's their map.

What I'm saying is that the foundation, which is the continuous, largely underground cement portion of the walls that bears the load of the building would be at the glass wall.  The glass wall is load bearing, and thus needs a foundation under it or it would sink into the ground.  The roof does continue out, and is supported by columns; and those columns would have footings under each of them; in other words there isn't a continuous foundation running along the outer edge under the columns.  Now if you were to go to city hall and say "How big a building can I build?" and they responded "In this area, the total footprints of all buildings can cover up to 40% of the property"; they would be including the covered walkway in the footprint.  You can't skirt the bylaw by covering the entire remainder of the property with "covered walkway".  Similarly, if I am determining a value for that building (my day job) based on the cost to construct it, I would include the entire roofed area as the footprint and then calculate costs of various portions of it based on whether it has walls, floors, etc.  Other industry professions would all include the walkway in the footprint; for example architect's plans will list "total footprint" and it would include the walkway.

So if Google does not want us to include overhangs like this, they should be telling us to draw the foundation of the building rather than the footprint.

[eastwest]

"The glass wall is load bearing"

You know, I'm finding this really hard to believe. I'd be willing to bet that if you walked into these places you'll see columns to support the roof (here's an example: http://g.co/maps/m6dxu), and the glass walls play no part in bearing the load.

[Flash]

Perhaps, though I wouldn't be surprised if there were both columns within plus this outer wall has a foundation.  It probably started with footings at every column, but then there is also probably a foundation at the wall to support it.

The big problem is the word "footprint".  It is confusing every one of us that knows the definition of the word.

[Will / NeoPhoenixTE]

I usually use something alone the lines of "the walls that separate what is considered to be indoors and what is considered to be outdoors" as a guide to what "footprint" means with these buildings. Unless there's a way to get inside the support columns, they would likely need to be omitted.

I've been getting very little resistance from GRs using said approach, so I have to presume it's an effective one to take on the whole footprint thing.

[Chaitanya Sri]

Hi all,

I have forwarded your insights to the concerned team on the topic.
Will let you know if I have any updates.

Thanks,
Chaitanya Sri