[Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de
Wed Nov 12 17:32:16 UTC 2014

On 12.11.2014 10:34, Pieren wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:22 PM, johnw <johnw at mac.com> wrote:
>> 2014-11-11 12:53 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de>:
>>> Therefore, would prefer a generic tag that can be added to any feature,
>>> e.g. location=rooftop.
> -1
> 'location' is already a bad keyword in OSM. Like "type", it is too
> generic and could be used for every thing.

Look at 'location' and 'type' in taginfo, and compare the two. While
type is indeed used for anything and everything, this is not at all the
case for location. People use the clearly defined location=underground
and that's it.

> I think the roof is part of the building 3d or levels mapping. We
> should not create a new use of "location" just for that. I could also
> imagine that in some buildings, the parking is somewhere in the middle
> and not necessarily on the top or on the bottom of the building, in
> which case you will have to invent a new tag for that.
> I would prefer something like "level=roof" or "level=3". Just where
> the parking(s) is in the building.

Of course level tagging would be the solution for anything below the
roof. However, roof mapping is more easily approachable than indoor
mapping (as you can use aerial imagery), so indoor mapping or even
knowing the number of levels should not be required for the ability to
map what's on top of the roof in my opinion. Using a level number would
also be likely not supported by regular (i.e. non-indoor) renderers,
while whatever=roof[top] might be.

Something like level=roof, on the other hand, would not be desirable if
there are multiple roof levels, and it also breaks the expectation that
the level key contains numeric values.

So I would prefer a specific tag for this situation. It doesn't have to
be location=rooftop, that was just my first idea.

More information about the Tagging mailing list