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 . <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 25 May 2015 at 01:52, Andrew Errington <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
