On 08.10.2018 15:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Version A is used and defined here: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:min_level > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings > > Version B mentions the tags for buildings, but doesn't specify the details: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging > > Do we really need 2 ocmpeting tags for this?
These aren't intended as competing tags, but as complimentary tags. A perfectly mapped building (indoor mapping + outdoor 3D modelling) should currently use both sets of tags. The tags mentioned in A are used for describing the outer shape of the building, whereas the tags from B are used for indoor mapping. These different use cases result in somewhat different conventions for the tags: - A is only counting above-ground levels (because only those can be verified without entering the building), whereas B includes underground levels. - B allows for things like "skipped levels", to reflect naming conventions chosen by the building owners, whereas A is strictly about counting levels, and does not take local customs for naming levels into account at all. The goal of mapping both is to match up the outdoor and indoor rendering. Or putting it differently, it answers the question which floor should be visible behind which row of windows. Of course, we can imagine alternative approaches for achieving this. For example, there could be some kind of tag that explicitly expresses "outdoor-level 0 corresponds to indoor-level -1". If we find a solution for the problem that's easier to understand and use that the currently documented one, it may be worth considering. But the S3DB building:*=* tags on their own are not a suitable replacement for Simple Indoor Tagging's min/max levels. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
