<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:07 PM Jmapb <<a href="mailto:jmapb@gmx.com">jmapb@gmx.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Re: Tagging Plans<br></p>
<p>I feel there's little value in importing addr:state=NY with these
addresses, since we have well-mapped state borders and the state
is
also unambiguously encoded in the ZIP code. I wonder if there are
good examples of addresses that would truly benefit from this
field, possibly on properties that are very near state lines. (We
also share a border with Canada of course, so perhaps a similar
case could be made for addr:country in the northern reaches of
Franklin and Clinton counties.)</p></div></blockquote><div>Disagree on this one. There are cases where the post office delivers across state lines, so that a mailbox in New York can have an address in Connecticut or New Jersey, or vice versa. It's also harder on the data consumer, who has to do a 'point-in-polygon' query against (at least) the fifty states to determine it. Let's keep the full street address associated with the building, please!</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p>Re: Data Reduction & Conflation<br></p></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<p>"... checked against an Overpass API for whether the address
already exists within a short distance of the point. If any
element with the same house number, street, or unit exists, then
the address point is skipped." Perhaps I'm misreading this, but it
seems to say you will not import an address point if you find
another element nearby tagged with the same addr:street? I'd
expect to see many instances where a currently-mapped address
neighbors an unmapped address on the same street, sometimes quite
nearby in dense areas. This sounds like it might exclude a lot of
valid addresses.</p>
<p>What's your reasoning behind not conflating address points that
lie within a building:part? Not a big issue I presume, just
curious.<br></p></div></blockquote><div>Yeah, this one sounds a bit dodgy. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p>
</p>
<p>Re: Modifying Existing Elements<br></p>
<p>Personally I would love to see city and ZIP added to
currently-mapped addresses that lack them. Maybe also consider
flagging for review when currently-mapped values don't match the
SAM values. I'm less keen on adding nysgissam:nysaddresspointid to
addresses that didn't originate with this import, since I'd like
to be able to tell at a glance if a given address was mapped or
imported. Perhaps there could be some variation in the tagging...
nysgissam:imported_addressid versus nysgissam:matched_addressid?<br></p></blockquote><div> I agree that an incompletely mapped address with a matching housenumber and no conflicts should have the rest of its missing values filled in. How we flag it for review could be discussed further.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p>
</p>
<p>Re: Addresses of new developments<br></p>
<p>It makes sense to add addresses to parcels where construction has
actually commenced, but IMO adding recordkeeping addresses to
completely undeveloped land strains the spirit of OSM a bit. If
there's truly no way to distinguish between these two types of
development status, I feel that the upside of importing them
probably still outweighs the downside. <br></p></blockquote><div>The only way, I think, to distinguish them is the absence of a building. Given that there's no way to distinguish "there's no building here" from "there might be a building here, but nobody has mapped it," I think that Skyler is making the right call.<br></div><div><br></div><div>We also need to flag for review if we find addr:street for which no corresponding `highway=*` exists. I have found cases local to me where there are address points on never-built streets, and some of them collide with buildings that have addresses on adjacent streets. (I actually need to field-survey in there, because there may actually be one or two houses with street addresses on the nonexistent street!)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p>
</p>
<p>Numbered Routes<br></p>
<p>Browsing through the online map of the SAM address points (
<a href="http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgisservices.its.ny.gov%2Farcgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2FSAM_Address_Points%2FMapServer&source=sd" target="_blank">http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgisservices.its.ny.gov%2Farcgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2FSAM_Address_Points%2FMapServer&source=sd</a>
) I see a lot of variation on how the numbered routes, and the
street names of the associated address points, are named. Eg,
Route 23, State Route 23, State Highway 23. And of course the
current data on OSM is just as messy. I can't help but think this
might be a good time to discuss standardizing these statewide.<br>
</p>
<p>Similarly for US routes: Route 6, United States Route 6, United
States Highway 6.<br></p></blockquote><div>Confounding this, the formal name of the street (State Route 23/State Highway 23/etc) may well change when it crosses a political boundary. Since NYS-SAM derives from county data, unless it's clearly inconsistent on a single stretch of highway within a county, I'd most likely import it as it appears. If the counties themselves have not harmonized the naming, we want to follow what they've done.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<p>New York City<br></p>
<p>There was a full import of building footprints and conflated
address data for all 5 NYC boros in 2013, from the city's own open
data. Wondering if there's any special consideration given to
integrating with these, or is it better to just wall it off and
work strictly from the city's data?<br></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The state's data were obtained from the city, so I'd simply exclude the five boroughs from the import altogether, until and unless there's a plan for how address point information will be updated and reconflated after the initial import.</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin</div></div>