DE:Proposed features/entrance
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| The Feature Page for this approved proposal is located at DE:Key:entrance |
| entrance | |
|---|---|
| Zustand: | Approved (active) |
| Vorgeschlagen von: | vsandre |
| Tagging: | entrance=* |
| betroffene Elemente: | node/way |
| Kurzbeschreibung: | Um zwischen verschiedenen Eingängen eines Gebäudes oder einer umschlossenen Fläche (ein Zoo, Vergnügungspark, Firmengelände usw.) zu unterscheiden. |
| Statistik: |
|
| Entwurf vom: | 2010-05-04 |
| Diskussionsbeginn: | 2010-05-05 |
| Abstimmungsbeginn: | 2011-10-13 |
| Abstimmungsende: | 2011-10-27 |
Definition
Der Schlüssel entrance=* beschreibt die Stelle, an der ein Gebäude oder umschlossenes Gebiet betreten oder verlassen werden kann. Also einen Eingang oder Ausgang. Über unterschiedliche Werte lassen sich die Funktion oder die Bedeutung angeben.
Dieser Schlüssel ersetzt building=entrance. In der Übergangsphase können beide Schlüssel zusammen verwendet werden.
Mit zusätzlichen Eigenschaften können die Rollstuhltauglichkeit, Nutzungserlaubnis, Überwachung und weiteres dargestellt werden.
Tagging
| Key | Value | Element | Comment | Rendering | Photo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| entrance | yes | 
|
An dieser Stelle befindet sich ein Eingang. (taginfo) Zahl vorhandener Schlüssel | ||
| entrance | main |
|
Haupteingang eines Gebäudes oder einer umschlossenen Fläche. Bei einem Shoppingzentrum kann es auch mehrere Haupteingänge geben. (taginfo) Zahl vorhandener Schlüssel |  | |
| entrance | service |
|
Ein Hinterausgang für Angestellte oder Zulieferer. (taginfo) Zahl vorhandener Schlüssel | ||
| entrance | exit |
|
Nur als Ausgang eines Gebäudes oder einer Fläche zu benutzen. Dies findet man oft bei großen Einkaufsmärkten oder Museen. (taginfo) Zahl vorhandener Schlüssel | ||
| entrance | emergency |
|
Ein Notausgang, welcher oft mit einem Alarm gekoppelt ist. (taginfo) Zahl vorhandener Schlüssel | .svg) |
Beschreibe bitte mit dem Schlüssel access=*, wer den Eingang benutzen darf:
- access=yes Die Öffentlichkeit hat uneingeschränktes Recht den Eingang zu benutzen.
- access=delivery Zutritt nur für Anlieferung oder Abholung von Waren.
- access=private Zutritt nur mit Schlüssel oder Key-Card möglich.
- access=no Zutritt verboten.
Nutze weitere access=*-Schlüssel um die Eingangsmöglichkeit für beispielsweise Rollstuhlfahren (wheelchair=yes) zu beschreiben.
Logo (Symbol / Piktogramm)
Vorschläge für Symbole zur Darstellung der unterschiedlichen Schlüssel-Werte:
entrance=yes,main,service,...
entrance=exit
entrance=emergency
entrance=noexit (vorgeschlagen für Eingänge, die nicht als Ausgang genutzt werden dürfen)
--Tony.emery (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Voting (Abstimmung)
Die Abstimmung ist beendet. 39 Bestätigungen, 4 Ablehnungen. Der Vorschlag ist angenommen. Die Seite entrance=* sollte erstellt werden (inzwischen vorhanden). building=entrance ist damit überholt.
I approve this proposal.- I approve this proposal. PaulKaz 08:35, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. Iav 22:17, 12 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. building=entrance should be deprecated, as "entrance" is not a type of separate building. Komяpa 22:17, 12 October 2011 (BST)
I oppose this proposal. The idea is good, by the proposal does not take into consideration that there are already more than 150000 nodes tagged with building=entrance, suggesting to retag them all. Zverik 22:18, 12 October 2011 (BST)
- entrance=* can live in coexistence without any problems. But for new taggings you should use entrance=* instead of building=entrance.--vsandre 13:26, 14 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. It's the better tag, which should be all that matters. If our processes don't allow us to revise earlier decisions, they are broken. --Tordanik 22:43, 12 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. We need to separate the current situation and the proposal. The proposal is good. --Aleksandr Dezhin 23:05, 12 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. entrance=* allows to specify kind of an entrance which is crucial. Deprecating building=entrance is useful as well, as the latter is not even a building. Retagging 150k or 150m nodes is not a problem, so I see no drawbacks --AMDmi3 23:23, 12 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. Hanska 23:46, 12 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. railway=subway_entrance delenda est! Erik Johansson 23:55, 12 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. I wasn't sure about depreciating building=entrance, but it conflicts with an unknown value falling back to building=yes. Pnorman 23:46, 12 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. I think it is good to allow this sort of usage, it would simplify things a lot. I also approve to retag the nodes, but maby with entrance=building (ro something simular)? --Michael Z. 23:54, 12 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. Magomogo 03:32, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. Metadenisik 04:34, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. Miroff 06:29, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. And I support changing all building=entrance to entrance=yes /al 06:54, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. And yes for convert all building=entrance to entrance=yes Dkiselev 07:08, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I oppose this proposal. building=entrance should NOT be deprecated. It used as address holder somewhere in Germany and Russia. Wowik 07:12, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I oppose this proposal. GaM "building=entrance should NOT be deprecated. It used as address holder somewhere in Germany and Russia" +1 07:20, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- So what? Also entrance=* can be used as "address holder". I myself, in Italy, I'm using building=entrance with a addr:housenumber=*, and I don't see any reason why entrance=* can't be used with that. --Hanska 08:15, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Hurdygurdyman 07:28, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. Kolen 07:46, 13 October 2011 (BST) Yes, building=* is for buildings
- I approve this proposal. Mtikhomirov 07:52, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. Also deprecate and remove building=entrance to clean the semantics of the building=* tag. --Surly 07:51, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. And I support changing all building=entrance to entrance=yes --Magol 08:03, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. And I support changing all building=entrance to entrance=yes --EdLoach 08:27, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. However, I strongly discourage large-scale retagging of building=entrance in the near future. We should first see how entrance=* is accepted by mappers and evolves further. Deprecation is fine - in terms of placing a remark on the corresponding wiki pages. --Oli-Wan 08:33, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. And I support changing all building=entrance to entrance=yes --Geri-oc 09:12, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. I support automated adding entrance=yes to all nodes with building=entrance, I support putting a "deprecated" label on building=entrance, but I don't support automated removing building=entrance. --Sanderd17 09:28, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. And I think that building=* should be kept for indicating what kind of building it is -- User:HillWithSmallFields 10:11, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. Felis Pimeja 13:10, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. AlRight 11:41, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. CKorsmeier 13:05, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Efred 12:52, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. But I also discourage nuking existing building=entrance tags at this time. Maybe in 6 months or a year. --ToeBee 15:51, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I oppose this proposal. We should remove the inconsistency before approving it, see Talk:Proposed_features/entrance#Entry-only_and_exit-only --Marl 19:23, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. MaksVasilev 23:26, 13 October 2011 (MSK)
- I approve this proposal. OK, it's usefull. --Alexander Sigachov 07:03, 14 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. And I support changing all building=entrance to entrance=yes b166er 08:53, 14 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. And I will change all the entrances I created myself to entrance=main. I think emergency_exit would have been a more logical choice though, even on an entrance tag.
- I approve this proposal. And I support changing all building=entrance to entrance=yes Computerfreaked 20:22, 17 October 2011 (BST)
- I oppose this proposal. ...in the current form. But I'm supportive to the idea itself. However, the current specification is half-baked! IMHO, it should at minimum provide a list for the common entrance types telling which of the values should be used. Currently it is too focused on shopping mall (and even for them it skips some important details such as minor doors leading to a single shop directly from the street). As is this proposal will make things WORSE due to ambiguity it will lead to as anyone selects non-yes value he/she prefers. We should come up uniform list for the common cases instead of chaos! Also mass-removal right after acceptance is something I'm highly against. I'd love to change to yes vote if the specifications become more precise. Ij 00:11, 21 October 2011 (BST)
- It's not a problem to add and document some values for the tag later, in the same manner as we extend "amenity=*", "shop=*", "craft=*" and many others tags. --Surly 16:14, 21 October 2011 (BST)
- I wonder why it is not possible to do it right from the beginning, just imagine mall, residential (multiple types), office, and craft buildings, and list the entrances one can think of. I feel that somebody just wants to rush with this instead of taking time to resolve the matters brought up? Ij 20:41, 22 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. - The general proposal is a formalization of current practice, as evidenced by https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=entrance#values . --Ceyockey 14:15, 22 October 2011 (BST)
- Really? There are 100k+ building=entrance. I've collected plenty (more than the top 1 entry there) and honestly don't know which one to select for residential building entrances but it seems that there's no interest in standardizing them until some undefined moment later? Why not now? Should I just select one I prefer for residential staircases and terraced entrances, and make your "evidence" obsolete? ;-) Ij 20:41, 22 October 2011 (BST)
- I'm supporting an inclusive approach (both formally accepted). You are talking from the point of view of exclusivity (one or the other). Which do you prefer? --Ceyockey 16:20, 23 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --luch86 14:23, 23 October 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. except extrance=exit which I oppose because it mixes different meanings. Better would be something like entrance_direction=in/out/both where both is the default. --Fkv 18:56, 24 October 2011 (BST)
Siehe auch
| entrance=* | building=entrance |
Hinweis: Der Schlüssel entrance=* kann nützlich sein beim Erzeugen von Garmin maps mit mkgmap und der Option add-pois-to-areas. Der Beitrag www.mkgmap.org.uk Commit:_r2050:_Add_option_pois-to-area-placement_to configure_the_placement_of_POIs_created_from_areas ist hilfreich, um mkgmap entsprechend zu konfigurieren.
Diskussion
Bitte nutze für die Diskussion die englische Talk-Seite. Talk:Proposed_features/entrance