Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 17:39 Uhr schrieb Tobias Knerr <[email protected] >:
> These aren't intended as competing tags, but as complimentary tags. A > perfectly mapped building (indoor mapping + outdoor 3D modelling) should > currently use both sets of tags. The tags mentioned in A are used for > describing the outer shape of the building, whereas the tags from B are > used for indoor mapping. > > > These different use cases result in somewhat different conventions for > the tags: > > - A is only counting above-ground levels (because only those can be > verified without entering the building), whereas B includes underground > levels. > A is not counting only above ground levels. It is counting these in building:levels, but it has "building:levels:underground" for underground levels and has also roof levels separate. The building:min_level definition says it is "For describing number of values, "filling" space between ground level and bottom level of building or part of building". min_level=-1 is a common value for the tag according to taginfo, and it doesn't seem to contradict the definition (if a "negative fill" is accepted). > - B allows for things like "skipped levels", to reflect naming > conventions chosen by the building owners, whereas A is strictly about > counting levels, and does not take local customs for naming levels into > account at all. > I agree that both is useful, local naming/ref and the physical situation. >From what I understand, we do not need building:max_level for scheme A (because the number of building levels is already clear from the 3 building:levels tags). I was using ranges and lists in the level tag so far, something that seems to be common as well: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/level#values https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:level I can see the min_level and max_level and non_existent_levels tags are useful for describing Indoor stuff (POIs, also building parts), but it is basically a two/three-tag-alternative to "level" with a range or list value. Minor nitpick: rather than "non_existent_levels" the name "skipped_levels" would have been nice, as it would also refer to generally existing levels (in the building) which are skipped in the specific building:part. A disadvantage from max_level and min_level and non_existent_levels is that you cannot infer the amount of total levels (if the definition is levels as locally used/signed), because you can never know how many levels there are in between level 1 and level 2 (in actual buildings). It could well be there are levels 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 or SU and SO. or foobar. We should definitely agree on to what the max_level and min_level tags refer (if they are written in local level names/refs, what would make sense, I agree). Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
