I saw this Diary entry. I would map a polygon of the car park and give it the supermarket's name, and connect the access road and the building entrance, do you have any other ideas. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GuenniLD/diary/398041

asked 17 Nov, 08:47

andy%20mackey's gravatar image

andy mackey
12.7k83138277
accept rate: 4%


Our basic standard mapping does not differ between underground or overground mapping.

That is not entirely true. It is good practice to add the location=x tag to any underground feature (location=underground), and it is actually pretty bad practice not to do so, as it will make it impossible to properly distinguish aboveground from underground features.

layer=x and level=x are NOT a replacement for using this tag, as there is nothing in their definition directly referring to the relative position of the object related to the soil surface, that is why you need to add location=underground where appropriate.

permanent link

answered 20 Nov, 08:43

mboeringa's gravatar image

mboeringa
1.4k21525
accept rate: 10%

edited 20 Nov, 08:44

I explicitly wrote our standard mapping does not differ. Of course there are additional tags like location but they are not required. And I estimate that >80% of buildings here have an aboveground and underground portion. I have never added any kind of location tag then.

But tell us. Which location tag would you add in this case? The store is above or under ground depending on from which side you are looking. So in my opinion a layer tag on the store and any objects above it serves the situation best.

(20 Nov, 20:40) TZorn

The word "standard" to me at least, as a non-native English speaker, suggests that it is the only good way to tag it. I agree though for the most part with you, that there are no differences between above or below ground buildings in most tagging, but I think it is good to always make new users aware of additional tagging options that may help clarify a situation. I have seen to many subway stations and underground parkings popping up in maps, because nobody bothered to tag them as location=underground.

This particular situation, as with so many modern buildings in dense city centers that need to support multiple usages of space, is I agree ambiguous as to the location tag. However, to me personally, if there are other significant building structures on the top surface / roof of the building, I think I would add the location=underground tag. If none such building structures on top, leave as-is.

(20 Nov, 20:55) mboeringa

I wouldn't do anything special in this case. Our basic standard mapping does not differ between underground or overground mapping.

I would map the building and car park and roads the same way as if everything was completely above ground. If there is something mapable on top of the supermarket (a road? a tree?) we can use layer to determine the stacking order.

permanent link

answered 17 Nov, 13:14

TZorn's gravatar image

TZorn
11.1k554204
accept rate: 15%

Do you have a link to an example please.

(19 Nov, 14:28) andy mackey

Or have a look at a modern milieu friendly building at '0' level, partly covered with earth, covered=yes ?

permanent link

answered 20 Nov, 09:28

Hendrikklaas's gravatar image

Hendrikklaas
9.2k190227378
accept rate: 5%

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×1
×1

question asked: 17 Nov, 08:47

question was seen: 217 times

last updated: 20 Nov, 20:58

Related questions

powered by OSQA