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>: > 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 . <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> 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> >>> 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> >>> 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> >>> >> > 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> >>> >> >> 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 >>> >> >>> 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >> >> > > > -- > 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 > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
