Hello. Please, click the links to view indoor escalators for a multi-level mall. This is a work in progress, so it’s not finished yet.
I’ve used the “door:no” tag and the “repeat_on” tag for the escalator end points.
The wiki says not to use “repeat_on” for ways. So, I have created multiple escalators overlapping each over for the different levels; three escalators going up and three escalators going down.
Is this mapped correctly or do changes need to be made? Thanks 
The tags on the escalators themselves look good, and I agree with creating one way for each escalator.
The end points of the ways, though, should eventually be connected to something (such as the inner ring of an indoor=area multipolygon), and I personally would avoid sharing the nodes between the different escalators. These are actually different points in 3d space (several meters apart, vertically), and should connect to different features: The upper end of a level=0;1 escalator would connect to the area on level=1, for example, but not to the area on level=2. It doesn’t make a visible difference in applications such as OpenLevelUp at the moment, but I believe that ensuring clean connectivity will be helpful for future applications such as indoor routing and indoor 3d rendering.
OT: That’s some really impressive 3d mapping in your the examples from your previous thread! Meant to reply there but forgot due to Christmas holiday travel.
Hello, thank you for your reply.
I’ve made changes. Is this correct? Is it necessary to use, “door=no”? This seems unnecessary to me, but I don’t know. If “door=no” is necessary, why is that?
I copied “door=no” on each level, but ID automatically combines them by creating a tag, for example, “level=0;1;2”.
I’ve created paths, “highway=path”, “indoor=corridor”, “level=1”. I assume this resolves clean connectivity issues for future applications, but is it acceptable or is it preferable to avoid mapping paths inside corridors?
Can you direct me to examples of escalators on multiple levels using the same vertical space and how they are correctly connected to corridors?
Thanks for the 3D comment. 3D is interesting, but not easily mastered 
No, using door=no isn’t necessary. I would only use it if there’s an empty doorway without a door, or some similar feature where one would normally expect a door (e.g. an entrance=* node).
Oh, I had no idea iD does that. Just tried it and it actually just merges nodes once you move them too close. That seems seems … unhelpful for indoor mapping.
As a JOSM user, I’m not sure how to stop iD from doing, sorry. 
I actually think it’s preferable to avoid drawing paths like these. This was probably a misunderstanding what I meant with “connectivity” – I was referring to the use of separate nodes, i.e. that this node, for example, shouldn’t be a single node, but three separate nodes on top of each other.
Hm, I haven’t indoor-mapped a building with more than one level of escalators yet. Let me see if I can find an example somewhere…
Yeah, I don’t like indoor paths either. It gets too messy. I’ll delete them.
If you can’t find examples of escalators on multiple levels using the same vertical space, can you give me examples of escalators connecting corridors on two different levels? Thanks.
For another example, you may check what I have tried to do in the Louvre museum. I created multipolygons on each level and the escalators connect to the inner area of the multipolygon. I’m not sure it’s perfect. I would like escalators to be areas like all other places in the museum, but there is no standard way to do it (with an area, you cannot specify the direction).
Thank you! I’ll take a look at your example.