On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 16:58, Tobias Zwick <o...@westnordost.de> wrote: > Well, all of which I mentioned is optional. But I can come up with two > use cases for wanting to know which level is the ground level: > > 1. Localization > > In an application, it is much nicer to be able to write > "ground floor" (en-GB), "first floor" or "basement floor 2" > than "level 0", "level M" or, worst, "level -1"
For any sufficiently complicated building, localization might be better covered by putting the local level name in "building nomeclature" in addr:floor as mentioned by Eugene. To give an example, my local big shopping centre (400 m long, on slightly sloping ground) names its "ground level" (with entrances from street) "Level 2" or "Level 3" depending on where you are, the level below "Level 2" is "Level 1", and the level below that is named "Urban Eatery". In your scheme this would be levels=UE,1,2,3,4 and ground_level=2 (I guess), which is fine for ref and determining vertical orientation. But reconstructing a recognizable name from this is hard. One could also make the argument that "Level 1" is the main level of this centre: more people arrive at this level because that's where the entrances from rapid transit stations are. Another centre I'm familiar with (again on sloping ground) names its levels in ascending order: "Ground Level", "Lower Level", "Upper Level", with official refs M0, M1, M2 respectively, and depending on definition all of them have street entrances. --Jarek _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
