[OSM-talk-be] Nodes or areas to tag amenities
marc marc
marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com
Wed Apr 18 16:53:32 UTC 2018
@ubipo for indoor=level, I suppose you mean indoor=yes indoor=thenumber :)
building:part is for a part of a building where tag related to the
building itself doesn't have the same value for one part <> another part
for exemple a building that have one part with one level :
building:part=yes
building:levels=1
and another part with 2 levels
building:part=yes
building:levels=1
both parts make one building with building=yes on the outline
but inside a buidling, room nearly never affect the building "external look"
so it should not be any building:part tag on a room,
except if a building:part is made by only one room of course.
for room=restaurant on amenety=restaurant, I've been talking with
PanierAvide who add this to the wiki. he agree that this is not good.
we are working on on howto make it better.
Le 18. 04. 18 à 18:43, Pieter Vander Vennet a écrit :
> I have some experience with indoor mapping.
>
> I would invite you guys to have a look at my work of the Blekerij in
> Gent
> <https://openlevelup.net/old/?lat=51.060092&lon=3.732321&z=19&t=0&lvl=0&tcd=1&urd=0&bdg=0&pic=0&nte=0&ilv=0>,
> as example. Toilets can be mapped as either a point or area with
> 'amenity=toilets, indoor=yes; level=0' (or perhaps 'level=0-2', e.g. for
> a building with toilets on the same location on floors 0 till 2.). Note
> that 'level=0' is the ground floor (gelijkvloers).
>
> I have no experience with the building:part=yes. I assume that
> indoor=yes implies 'building:part=yes' and that 'building:part' is
> rather used for roofs etc...
>
>
>
>
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet
>
> 2018-04-18 18:13 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe <joost.schouppe at gmail.com
> <mailto:joost.schouppe at gmail.com>>:
>
> How does this relate to the building:part=yes strategy that
> L'imaginaire has been playing with, e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283645760
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283645760>
>
> 2018-04-18 15:56 GMT+02:00 Ubipo . <ubipo.skippy at gmail.com
> <mailto:ubipo.skippy at gmail.com>>:
>
> After furter consideration I think indoor=level combined with
> amenity=restaurant should solve most problems.
> Improving the map would then be as simple as not editing the
> general indoor=level and just drawing new ways for individual
> rooms (not tagged amenity=restaurant).
>
> A restaurant on multiple floors would indeed be tricky as
> indoor=level implies a single level, although I think just
> adding level=0;1 shouldn't be that bad, right?
>
> On 18 April 2018 at 13:58, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com
> <mailto:marc.gemis at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> how does someone "improve" your mapping to add a separate
> area for
> room=toilets ? nested room areas ? split it off ?
>
> m.
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Ubipo .
> <ubipo.skippy at gmail.com <mailto:ubipo.skippy at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Regarding the housenumbers: street and number is as said
> probably not needed
> > and better reserved for the actual building, although a
> specialised
> > addr:addition=a could be useful for the rooms.
> > Regarding room=restaurant, I think that tag is perfectly
> fine. It just
> > indicates the restaurant in it's entirety, with dining
> room, kitchen etc.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 12:10 marc marc
> <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com
> <mailto:marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> for the addr : it look like strange that the room is in
> a building that
> >> doesn't have the same addr:housenumber as the building.
> >>
> >> for multiple floors poi, you can draw all room with
> level=* tag
> >> or as a first step only use indoor=yes for the whole area
> >>
> >> room=restaurant look like also strange for me.
> >> a restaurant is several room=* item : kitchen, dining
> room, toilets,
> >> cloakroom
> >> so what's a room=restaurant ? it can not be the same as
> the area used
> >> for amenity=restaurant. maybe it should be the area for
> the dining room.
> >> the wiki advice to put both tag to the same polygon look
> like wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 18. 04. 18 à 11:56, Marc Gemis a écrit :
> >> > 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <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
> <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
> <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> >> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Talk-be mailing list
> >> > Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Talk-be mailing list
> >> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap
> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
More information about the Talk-be
mailing list