[Tagging] [Indoor] is indoor=level walled ?

PanierAvide panieravide at riseup.net
Fri Jul 26 11:57:07 UTC 2019

Thanks for this feedback. In these examples, I would say that there is 
still a clear delimitation of what outside and what is inside, so can be 
addressed with Simple 3D buildings modelling. My question is oriented in 
a particular case where you don't have a very precise delimitation of 
inside/outside, like this parking lot :


As level 0 doesn't have wall, if you are near the building "limit" you 
can consider being outside, but at the center of this level you are 
clearly inside (covered, maybe warmer). So how can we represent this 
lack of walls, but looking more like something inside ?

Best regards,

Adrien P.

Le 26/07/2019 à 13:39, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> Am Fr., 26. Juli 2019 um 13:18 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer 
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>>:
>     no, I would put it like this: the ground floor is still part of
>     the building, but it is outside. Like a balcony for example. Would
>     you say a balcony is "inside"?
> I guess this was too short, here's a more exhaustive take on the 
> typical situations:
> 1. iconic building by le Corbu: 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/a/af/Villa_Savoye_2015.jpg 
> This is a typical example for a raised modernist building.
> the space where you can see chairs is IMHO clearly not "indoor", I 
> would tend to accept it is part of the building (because it is 
> "created"/delimited by the building and intended as usuable space), 
> but you could also argue it is part of the garden, the architect even 
> emphasizes this by using the same pavement as for the driveway (at 
> least it looks like this on the picture).
> These are typically cases where the building is raised above the 
> ground in order to make use of a covered outdoor space, e.g. to use it 
> as part of the garden, or to park a car, or as common space for the 
> residents.
> 2. reconstruction of prehistoric raised buildings inside the Lake of 
> Constance: 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Pfahlbaumuseum_Unteruhldingen_Steinzeith%C3%A4user_Riedschachen_2010_04_10.jpg
> I would tend to count the outdoor space below the "house" as not being 
> part of the building (conceptually, the building is standing on legs, 
> and while the legs are part of it, the area where they stand could be 
> considered as not part of it). The area not being usable/accessible 
> contributes to this judgement.
> There are similar examples all over the world, e.g. here: 
> http://bilder.net/bild-h%c3%bctte-urwald-orinoco-2335.jpg or here 
> http://www.amliebstenreisen.at/bilder/2015/02/junglebay-2-660x330.jpg
> These are generally cases where the building is raised above a 
> "hostile" environment, e.g. to protect it from water, wild animals, 
> enemies, or to create a level surface in an inclined surrounding. 
> Typically the space below is not used in these cases. I would not 
> consider the (unmodified / unaltered) ground below the building to be 
> part of the building.
> In all cases, I would not consider these indoor spaces, because they 
> can not be heated or cooled, while you may be protected from the sun 
> and precipitation you will still feel more outside than inside, typically.
> I acknowledge there are many different situations and you will have to 
> assess these individually, there will surely be a lot of edge cases. 
> How you see them may also depend on the climate in the area in 
> general, e.g. there are also lots of houses that are neither cooled 
> nor heated, and some may have openings that cannot be closed rather 
> than windows.
> Cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190726/c7633a32/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list