I agree on the separation of building:part=* for architectural distinct building parts and room=* for mostly functionaly distinct parts of a building. I think there should be a general indoor=part or something (don't quote me on that tag, I can't really think of something better). This would then replace the room=restaurant and would serve to separate functionaly different parts of a building. Another example apart from a restaurant is a building containing both classrooms and a library. The library would be tagged as indoor=part and the relevant amenity (with optional room=*'s inside that) and the classrooms would just be tagged as room=* and indoor=room as they don't really form a whole.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 18:54 marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > @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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
