[Tagging] Wiki: Key:level: proposed rewrite

[Paul Johnson]

Level should be the layers relative to the (lowest) ground, regardless of
how that's defined in the building, for consistency sake.  As often as not
here, 1 is either the second floor off the ground or the ground floor, with
G being Ground.  Granted, this gets a little tricker, with complex
examples, such as Doernbecher Children's Hospital, which has no 2nd or 4th
floor (really, there's actually a gap only attached by elevator shaft and
stairwells!), with floors 1, 3, and 9 being ground level.  Or University
Hospital South at Oregon Health Sciences University, in which floors 1, 8
and 9 are ground level (with 8 connecting to Doernbecher's 8th floor, and
the Portland VA's third floor).

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 9:56 PM, pmailkeey . <pmailkeey at googlemail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 25 May 2015 at 01:52, Andrew Errington <erringtona at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I object.
>>
>> level=* is an "internal" value.  Its meaning is absolute, which is
>> necessary because it is used worldwide.
>>
>
>> When the value is displayed, the displaying software should localise the
>> result according to either the viewer's language, or viewer's location.
>> Perhaps you are not aware that in some places what British people call
>> "ground floor" is called "first floor".  However, it is still the same
>> floor, so it's appropriate to tag it the same (level=0).
>>
>> The numbers are not meaningless.  They are clearly defined in the wiki.
>>
>
>
> OSM is for humans - humans need to understand it. Level with ref to
> buildings equates to 'floor'. Floors have names such as "4th Floor" and
> often signed as "4". Software should not need to make a conversion as none
> is necessary - OSM 'level' should equate to the floor name as used by the
> building operators.
>
> I note you're going for floor 1 = level 0 - which is clearly silly. I am
> aware of the US/UK numbering differences - an ideal illustration for not
> having an 'internal' scheme but to simply apply the correct label for the
> floor for that locality. I don't see why the Americans would be expected to
> specify level 1 for the second floor - there's no logic to that.
>
> In your 'numeric' scheme, how do you deal with 'missing' floors ? (e.g.
> G,1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 ?) In 'my' naming scheme, there isn't a missing
> floor with that set of names. Are you expecting to do a local conversion
> for level 3 upwards ?
>
> Surely naming is simpler - no confusion and labelling matches what people
> find on the site.
>
> Which floor is 'ground floor' ? the lower one, the upper one or one in the
> middle ? Look at the following example building with 5 floors:
>
> L2
> L1
> L0 <-- ground floor
> G1
> G2 <-- ground floor
>
> --
> Mike.
> @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> -
> For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
> via *the area's premier website - *
>
> *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family,
> property & pets*
>
> T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150526/1267533a/attachment.html>