Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Warin]

On 27/09/19 03:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Markus 
mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>>:


BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag
for indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any
reasons for that?



Not sure if we need a different tag (in both cases), but for steps 
we're missing some basic parameters to define them. There is 
"step_count" which is fine, but it lacks the steps measurements (e.g. 
18/27, which means 18cm high and 27 cm "free" to stand on (this is the 
outer measurement and does not account for the part of the step that 
is covered by the next step, if any, depending on the construction 
details).


Technically the usual stair/step basic specifications are;

'rise' vertical displacement from one step to the next step
'going' or 'run' horizontal displacement from one step to the next step

See
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8393/2077370.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairs#Measurements

Note: number of steps is the number of risers, not treads.

And the width of the thing (usually net width = width - handrails and 
other stuff that obstructs the steps). The height can also easily be 
calculated from the height difference and the step count.


Additional interesting properties could be: necessary steps (required 
by building code) or not, steps suitable for use during fire / with 
forced smoke outlets, etc. (important emergency information).


Stairs for use in a fire are usually fully enclosed behind doors that 
latch closed and the doors are fire rated, the enclosure is also rated 
for fire.


Building codes will change from place to place. As building codes will 
cover some area and change from time to time I don't think they need to 
go into OSM.





And of course there are many more, like surface, general geometry 
(linear / circular / ...)


The geometry would be given by the map.
OSM already has a surface tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Philip Barnes]

Well indoors they become stairs.

True at least in the parts of England/Wales I am from. I believe usage is 
different in Scotland.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Thursday, 26 September 2019, Markus wrote:
> BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for
> indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for
> that?
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Markus <
selfishseaho...@gmail.com>:

> BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for
> indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for
> that?
>
>

Not sure if we need a different tag (in both cases), but for steps we're
missing some basic parameters to define them. There is "step_count" which
is fine, but it lacks the steps measurements (e.g. 18/27, which means 18cm
high and 27 cm "free" to stand on (this is the outer measurement and does
not account for the part of the step that is covered by the next step, if
any, depending on the construction details). And the width of the thing
(usually net width = width - handrails and other stuff that obstructs the
steps). The height can also easily be calculated from the height difference
and the step count.

Additional interesting properties could be: necessary steps (required by
building code) or not, steps suitable for use during fire / with forced
smoke outlets, etc. (important emergency information).

Andf of course there are many more, like surface, general geometry (linear
/ circular / ...)

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Markus]

BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for
indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for
that?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Markus]

Hi Jeremiah,

Why not highway=footway + indoor=yes? This seems to be the most used
tagging for indoor ways. Current usage statistics are:

highway=footway + indoor=yes: 34, 326
highway=corridor: 13, 914
highway=footway + footway=indoor: 268
indoor=footway: 210

Also note that 31.33% of all tag combinations with indoor=yes are
highway=footway + indoor=yes.

Regards
Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Jeremiah Rose]

I've updated this RFC with some of the comments received over the last week.

footway=indoor: indoor pedestrian route
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/footway%3Dindoor

Thanks,
Jeremiah Rose

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Jeremiah Rose]

>I can see some value in mapping routes through a 
>room which is full of obstacles, but I don't like
>the idea of using this where a routing graph 
>could be calculated from indoor=corridor/area/room
>polygons just fine.
>While the slow progress of OSM-based routing 
>engines in this regard is regrettable, trading 
>extra mapper hours for something that could be 
>realistically automated always seems wasteful to me.

Yes, I've thought that this the best way to handle routing with SIT...but is 
this more of a potential solution or research project versus something that can 
be used for indoor routing in the near term. There would be a non-trivial 
amount of work involved, for sure, to add this tagging. It amounts to mapping a 
building in SIT, then going back to map indoor routes. 

The issue of obstacles is big, though. There is a huge number and variety of 
obstacles indoors, both temporary and permanent--everything from sunken floor 
pits to stationary exhibits, all kinds of things. We can make up tags, of 
course, but for the most part I think a lot of this will just not be mapped. I 
think about different kinds of rooms, like a lobby where the best route is a 
straight line from door to door, versus a conference room where there are 
usually varied arrangements of tables or temporary seating that always leaves 
an aisle down the center of the room or around the walls; some of this is 
venue-specific. I work with a lot of travelers who are blind and for whom those 
kinds of decisions are not apparent. For example, a few months ago I guided a 
colleague through a museum that used temporary walls to display artworks within 
a large gallery room (which formed a series of "traps" for him), and changed 
the layout of these walls every few months. They always used a common walkway 
that would be easy to mark, though, and much more feasible to maintain than all 
those movable walls. 

I'll add a statement emphasizing that this is to be used in addition to rather 
than instead of SIT. The points about using highway=footway instead of another 
tag are important ones, and I'll add them to the discussion section.  

Jeremiah

>>From: Jeremiah Rose 
>>Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 12:41 PM
>>To: tagging@openstreetmap.org; ind...@openstreetmap.org
>>Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor
>>
>>Here's a proposal for marking indoor routes within a building mapped with 
>>Simple Indoor Tagging. 
>>
>>footway=indoor: indoor pedestrian route
>>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/footway%3Dindoor
>>
>>Jeremiah Rose

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Jeremiah Rose]

> How is this different from highway=corridor?
The wiki for highway=corridor says that it was part of an older indoor tagging 
scheme, but doesn't link to that scheme, so it's hard to understand how it 
would fit into that scheme. The biggest difference of course is that 
footway=indoor tags highway=footway while highway=corridor is a different 
highway=* tag. 

If highway=corridor is used for indoor routes, there probably should be some 
discussion in the wiki of how it is to be used with SIT's indoor=corridor, 
which describes space in a very different way. Should highway=corridor be used 
to mark routes through non-corridors? Museum and hotel lobbies, conference 
spaces, and similar areas are tagged as indoor=room in SIT.

I discussed this with a few other people at SOTM US, and a couple of other uses 
for highway=corridor have been mentioned. For example, it's been mentioned as 
being used for an exterior passage that goes through a building, which I 
associate with tunnel=building_passage. It was also mentioned as being used for 
an underground shopping corridor, such as you might find in a large underground 
urban train station. There are a lot of examples of highway=corridor in 
taginfo, I hope the use of this tag could be better documented. 

Jeremiah



>>From: Jeremiah Rose 
>>Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 12:41 PM
>>To: tagging@openstreetmap.org; ind...@openstreetmap.org
>>Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor
>>
>>Here's a proposal for marking indoor routes within a building mapped with 
>>Simple Indoor Tagging. 
>>
>>footway=indoor: indoor pedestrian route
>>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/footway%3Dindoor
>>
>>Jeremiah Rose

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Tobias Knerr]

On 05.09.19 18:41, Jeremiah Rose wrote:
> Here's a proposal for marking indoor routes within a building mapped with 
> Simple Indoor Tagging. 

I can see some value in mapping routes through a room which is full of
obstacles, but I don't like the idea of using this where a routing graph
could be calculated from indoor=corridor/area/room polygons just fine.
While the slow progress of OSM-based routing engines in this regard is
regrettable, trading extra mapper hours for something that could be
realistically automated always seems wasteful to me.

Of course, if someone feels it's worth spending their time, that's
ultimately up to them and I'm not going to stop them. Even with that in
mind, though, there are some aspects of this proposal which I find
problematic as they might have collateral effects on many other data
consumers besides the ones it's designed to help:

* the lack of a clear statement that this tagging is to be used in
addition to the SIT tags on polygons and should not replace them
* use of highway=footway, rather than a new tag which would have no
effect data consumers which don't opt in
* sharing the same tag for both use cases (hints for routers without
good indoor support which should be ignored by more advanced routing
engines, versus routes which should always be preferred over
automatically derived routes).

Tobias

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Simon Poole]

Was going to ask the same thing, not that I don't think that both are
redundant, but why have two -different- redundant tags?

Am 05.09.2019 um 18:46 schrieb Leif Rasmussen:
> How is this different from highway=corridor?  
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 12:42 PM Jeremiah Rose  > wrote:
>
> Here's a proposal for marking indoor routes within a building
> mapped with Simple Indoor Tagging.
>
> footway=indoor: indoor pedestrian route
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/footway%3Dindoor
>
> Jeremiah Rose
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Leif Rasmussen]

How is this different from highway=corridor?

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 12:42 PM Jeremiah Rose  wrote:

> Here's a proposal for marking indoor routes within a building mapped with
> Simple Indoor Tagging.
>
> footway=indoor: indoor pedestrian route
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/footway%3Dindoor
>
> Jeremiah Rose
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Jeremiah Rose]

Here's a proposal for marking indoor routes within a building mapped with 
Simple Indoor Tagging. 

footway=indoor: indoor pedestrian route
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/footway%3Dindoor

Jeremiah Rose

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging