@ubipo for indoor=level, I suppose you mean indoor=yes indoor=thenumber :) building:part is for a part of a building where tag related to the building itself doesn't have the same value for one part <> another part for exemple a building that have one part with one level : building:part=yes building:levels=1 and another part with 2 levels building:part=yes building:levels=1 both parts make one building with building=yes on the outline
but inside a buidling, room nearly never affect the building "external look" so it should not be any building:part tag on a room, except if a building:part is made by only one room of course. for room=restaurant on amenety=restaurant, I've been talking with PanierAvide who add this to the wiki. he agree that this is not good. we are working on on howto make it better. Le 18. 04. 18 à 18:43, Pieter Vander Vennet a écrit : > I have some experience with indoor mapping. > > I would invite you guys to have a look at my work of the Blekerij in > Gent > <https://openlevelup.net/old/?lat=51.060092&lon=3.732321&z=19&t=0&lvl=0&tcd=1&urd=0&bdg=0&pic=0&nte=0&ilv=0>, > > as example. Toilets can be mapped as either a point or area with > 'amenity=toilets, indoor=yes; level=0' (or perhaps 'level=0-2', e.g. for > a building with toilets on the same location on floors 0 till 2.). Note > that 'level=0' is the ground floor (gelijkvloers). > > I have no experience with the building:part=yes. I assume that > indoor=yes implies 'building:part=yes' and that 'building:part' is > rather used for roofs etc... > > > > > Met vriendelijke groeten, > Pieter Vander Vennet > > 2018-04-18 18:13 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com > <mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>>: > > How does this relate to the building:part=yes strategy that > L'imaginaire has been playing with, e.g. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283645760 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283645760> > > 2018-04-18 15:56 GMT+02:00 Ubipo . <ubipo.ski...@gmail.com > <mailto:ubipo.ski...@gmail.com>>: > > 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 > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > <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 > <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 > <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> > >> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Talk-be mailing list > >> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> > >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Talk-be mailing list > >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-be mailing list > > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> > > > > > -- > Joost Schouppe > OpenStreetMap > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter > <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup > <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > <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
