On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 07:37:23PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > So from a SIT perspective, the problem isn't that the US (and other > > places) call the ground level "1". It's that the level below that is > > called "-1" rather than "0". You could still make it compatible with > > Simple Indoor Tagging by adding a skipped_levels=0 tag to the building, > > but this tag has only been used five times so far. > > skipped_levels is also pretty awkward because one needs to recalculate > the indexed (OSM) level from the real (on the ground) level all the > time. Even worse if the levels are not actually numbers on the ground > but letters or something else (like in that mall in Bangkok). > > If SIT (and by consensus in the SotM 2016 indoor session) encourages to > use the level numbering scheme of the building operator, why keep the > "tied to numbers" requirement? > > Someone mentioned earlier in a diary discussion a pretty nice > solution[1]. So, in a mall with the levels P2,P1,G,M,1-12,14-99 one > simply tags: > > - a shop on level M with "level=M" > > - the mall building with "levels=P2,P1,G,M,1-12,14-99" (the order of the > levels). If levels is missing, a numerical order is assumed > > - also the building with "ground_level=G" to define which level is > the ground level. If ground_level is missing, 0 is assumed. > > I find this would have the following advantages while completely > compatible with the current SIT scheme and has no disadvantages (I can > come up with):
looks nice to me.. just hope that nobody needs level names with a ",". Do we really need a ground level? I think not. We need connections to outside ways and entrances. Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
