The NPR "The World" geo quiz for today: where is this building?
Henning
On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:17 PM, creed@opengeospatial.org wrote:
> Very true! I have seen - in different countries - where G, M, 0, or 1 is
> the ground floor.
>
> Carl
>
>> Please don't think that by saying "0" is the ground floor that you have
>> made things definitive and interoperable.
>>
>> There are plenty of buildings that are constructed into a sloped site,
>> such that it is not at all clear which floor is "ground".
>>
>> By having a numbering system that doesn't match anything else (signage,
>> plans, local knowledge, etc), you pretty much guarantee that no one can
>> actually use it.
>>
>> I know that fire brigades often designate their main entrance floor 0 or
>> 1, and count (up/down) from there, but they create a reference that
>> everyone understands, and they train their people to use their convention.
>>
>> Absent a very detailed plan, and a way to know for sure which floor is
>> "ground", you create a hard to use mechanism that can have ambiguity.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2010, at 12:20 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, while we're on this, there's another contradiction lurking
>>> here:
>>>
>>> On the one hand, the option definitions say:
>>> "Altitude: A 30 bit value defined by the AType field."
>>> One might read this to mean that the AType value can specify the meaning
>>> of all the bits in the field. So if I define AType=7, I could say that
>>> the the 30 bits contain a 3-character ASCII code describing the color of
>>> the carpet on the floor in question (with each character padded to 10
>>> bits, natch). More to the point, for AType=2 (==floors), you might
>>> split the field into two integers, one signed and one unsigned, that
>>> represent "major" and "minor" floor numbers. That way, you could
>>> actually directly represent 1.1, 4.1, 4.2.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, Section 2.4 defines the Altitude field as 22/8 fixed
>>> point regardless of the AType value -- it's only the semantic of this
>>> number that changes. This rules out all of the creative encodings
>>> described above, at the cost of forcing everything into a 22/8
>>> fixed-point mold.
>>>
>>> I'll leave it to the author to decide which of these to go with (I don't
>>> think it really matters much). If it's the former, then the 22/8 fixed
>>> point thing should be moved down into the subsections of 2.4. If the
>>> latter, then it should be moved up to the option definitions, as with
>>> the Latitude and Longitude fields.
>>>
>>> --Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2010, at 10:46 PM, geopriv issue tracker wrote:
>>>
>>>> #41: David Harrington's DISCUSS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Comment(by bernard_aboba@…):
>>>>
>>>> [James Polk]
>>>>
>>>> #41: David Harrington's DISCUSS Comment(by bernard_aboba at ?):
>>>> Proposed Resolution: In 2.2.1.2, s/same respoonse. This is not useful
>>>> since/same response, since/ Replace Section 2.4.3 with the following:
>>>>
>>>> A value of two for Altitude Type indicates that the Altitude value
>>>> is
>>>> measured in floors. This value is relevant only in relation to a
>>>> building; the value is relative to the ground level of the building.
>>>>
>>>> In this definition, numbering starts at ground level, which is floor
>>>> 0 regardless of local convention. Floors located below ground level
>>>> could be represented by negative values.
>>>>
>>>> I recommend a change to be definitive here with
>>>> s/could be/are
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Larger values represent floors
>>>> that are above (higher in altitude) floors with lower values.
>>>>
>>>> This sentence is written in one direction; i.e., up.
>>>>
>>>> I recommend
>>>> "Larger values represent floors that are farther away from floor 0
>>>> such that -
>>>>
>>>> - if positive, the floor value is farther above the ground floor.
>>>>
>>>> - if negative, the floor value is farther below the ground floor."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Non-integer values can be used to represent intermediate or sub-
>>>> floors, such as mezzanine levels. Example: a
>>>> mezzanine between floor 1 and floor 2 could be represented as a
>>>> value
>>>> = 1.1. Example: (2) mezzanines between floor 4 and floor 5 could be
>>>> represented as values = 4.1 and 4.2 respectively.
>>>>
>>>> I'm fine with the rest as written.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> [Bernard Aboba]
>>>>
>>>> Here is a revised proposal for the text of Section 2.4.3:
>>>>
>>>> 2.4.3. Altitude in Floors (AType = 2)
>>>>
>>>> A value of two for Altitude Type indicates that the Altitude value is
>>>> measured in floors. Since altitude in meters may not be known within
>>>> a building, a floor indication may be more useful. This value is
>>>> relevant only in relation to a building; the value is relative to the
>>>> ground level of the building.
>>>>
>>>> Numbering starts at ground level, which is floor 0 regardless of
>>>> local convention. Floors located below ground level are represented
>>>> by negative values. Larger values represent floors that are farther
>>>> away from floor 0 such that:
>>>>
>>>> - if positive, the floor value is farther above the ground floor.
>>>> - if negative, the floor value is farther below the ground floor.
>>>>
>>>> Non-integer values can be used to represent intermediate or sub-
>>>> floors, such as mezzanine levels. Example: a mezzanine between floor
>>>> 1 and floor 2 could be represented as a value of 1.1. Example:
>>>> mezzanines between floor 4 and floor 5 could be represented as values
>>>> of 4.1 and 4.2.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
>>>> Reporter: bernard_aboba@… | Owner: bernard_aboba@…
>>>> Type: defect | Status: new
>>>> Priority: major | Milestone:
>>>> draft-ietf-geopriv-3825bis
>>>> Component: rfc3825bis | Version: 1.0
>>>> Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords:
>>>> ---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Ticket URL:
>>>> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/41#comment:3>
>>>> geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
