[Talk-transit] Vertical Levels (Layers) versus Altitude forstations
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Fri Sep 4 10:09:44 BST 2009
On 4 Sep 2009, at 09:25, Christoph Boehme wrote:
> Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
>> We would also need to consider slope, steps and lifts between layers
>> and the situation where a lift only connects some layers but not all
>> of them. A lift is currently represented as a single node because it
>> is vertical. How does one indicate which layers it connects?
> We could create one elevator-node for each level the elevator connects
> to. These nodes are only connected to the ways on their level. This
> basically results in the elevator access points (aka doors) are
> To find out which elevator doors belong to the same elevator we can
> all the nodes in a relation. Please note that this scheme would not
> work for elevators but also for teleporters.
Could we map levels/layers using relations, and then the elevator node
could be associated with the relevant layers.
We could tag the elevator node with 'layer=1,2,3,4' or whatever to
identify which layers were accessible.
Should each layer actually be a polygon with a name, ie
'name=basement' or 'name=Level 2' and possibly as 'highway=pedestrian'
and 'areas=yes'? All other features (tracks, footways, toilets and
shops etc) tagged with the same 'layer' tag that are within the area
of the polygon would then be associated with it for routing purposes.
Lets ensure that we keep the map as accessible as possible for newbies
while also managing to capture this additional stuff. I would suggest
that we try to devise a schema that can be used with today's editors
but which will be easier with a 'focus' function that could be
incorporated into a later version of Potlatch and JOSM etc.
>>  http://www.wildalaskacruises.com/capabilities.htm
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Talk-transit