[OSM-talk-be] Nodes or areas to tag amenities

[Marc Gemis]

o, I forgot, what about a restaurant that occupies multiple floors ?



On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea of using indoor mapping is good, and it's probably the future
> to solve all the problems you mention. (we had a similar discussion
> last Friday on the Riot channel)
>
> Some remarks:
>
> - does it make sense for a "room" to have an house number and a street
> ? I would expect those on the building, and floor or level or so on
> the room.
> - I'm not familiar enough with the simple  indoor tagging, but I would
> expect that a restaurant exists of multiple rooms (dining, toilets,
> kitchen) not just one.
> - On the Riot channel the entrance to the restaurant was also seen as important.
>
> m
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Ubipo . <ubipo.skippy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Everyone,
>>
>> A long standing question for osm mapping in cities is wether to tag
>> amenities in multi-purpose buildings as:
>> - a separate node inside the building's way
>> - the building itself, using both building=house and amenity=* (only valid
>> with single-amenity buildings)
>> The node approach has consistency issues like these buildings:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/656793551 .
>>
>> The area approach is more consistent but doesn't really allow multi-purpose
>> buildings.
>> A third, lesser used method is to use part of the simple indoor tagging
>> schema. I've used a simplified version of this for this restaurant:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/580985564 .
>> This approach uses two overlapping ways, one for the general building
>> (tagged building=house) and one for the restaurant on the ground floor
>> (tagged room=restaurant and of course amenity=restaurant).
>>
>> Drawbacks of this are for one that the two ways fully overlap. This triggers
>> the JOSM validator and probably some QC tools. Secondly renderers might have
>> trouble placing the icons and house numbers of multiple areas like this.
>> Luckily both these problems could be fixed. The positives are of course:
>> consistency and the possibility for multiple amenities (using the level=*
>> key).
>>
>> What do you all think of this approach?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Pieter (Ubipo)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>