For this particular example, I thought it was quite appropriate. The different shops are in the same building (according to GRB), but can also be clearly separated ‘architecturally’ (see streetview<https://www.google.be/maps/@51.0899216,3.4454343,3a,75y,37.39h,83.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx4e3GkQ16irl8xvamEQedw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dx4e3GkQ16irl8xvamEQedw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D9.20368%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl>). But as others point out, this method will probably not always work.
Seppe Van: joost schouppe [mailto:[email protected]] Verzonden: woensdag 18 april 2018 18:15 Aan: OpenStreetMap Belgium Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-be] Nodes or areas to tag amenities 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 2018-04-18 15:56 GMT+02:00 Ubipo . <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 . <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >> > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> > 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 . >> >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> 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 >> >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> >>> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Talk-be mailing list >> > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
