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.ge...@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.ski...@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_...@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.ge...@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.ski...@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 . > >> >>> > >> >>> 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 . > >> >>> 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@openstreetmap.org > >> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >> >>> > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Talk-be mailing list > >> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Talk-be mailing list > >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-be mailing list > > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
