On 21.01.19 22:38, Roland Olbricht wrote: > I do consider both to be SIT compliant.
I'm not sure if it's clear from the written text of SIT, but neither fractional levels nor indoor features outside of a building outline were part of SIT's design. (And yes, these are obvious omissions that will need work.) > In particular, there is no object that could or should carry tags > applying to all involved objects. Levels only have meaning within a single structure, though. Level "2" in the neighbouring building (or even building part) might represent an entirely different absolute elevation. An important assumption (and limitation, because this isn't always true in reality) of SIT is, therefore, that there is some kind of outline within which a level number refers to a single, fixed elevation. I didn't really raise that point so far because I don't have a better solution to offer yet, but your station mapping does contradict the assumptions we had when writing SIT, and I feel we should collaborate to define the semantics of such a situation. > But I do not see yet why there should be a mapping of levels to integers > at all. One reason that's of particular interest to me is that SIT is intended to be compatible with 3D rendering, allowing for the creation of 3D models that represent both the inside and outside of buildings at the same time. At the moment, Simple 3D Buildings has no support for "half" levels, so if we want to preserve that feature of SIT, we would need to update both tagging standards at the same time. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
