<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 13:43, Mateusz Konieczny via Imports <<a href="mailto:imports@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">imports@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<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>
<div></div><div>Jan 3, 2023, 07:29 by <a href="mailto:davisklavins@gmail.com" target="_blank">davisklavins@gmail.com</a>:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 at 22:32, Mateusz Konieczny via Imports <<a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="mailto:imports@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">imports@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div></div><div>Not sure what you mean by redefining tags.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">As I understand you started to used addr:place for cases where<br></div><div dir="auto">there is street-indexed housenumber and no place-indexed housenumber<br></div><div dir="auto">and it is not a conscription number.<br></div><div dir="auto"></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>OK, different usage than documented in wiki. Yes, it was for all cases when an address was located within a village, either as a housenumber assigned to a street, or as a housename without a street. I changed addr:place to addr:city in all cases, but it might be that addr:place should have been retained for housenames without a street. Also, it's not clear in these cases, if addr:city can be retained, or not (wiki says it can be, but Sarah wrote the opposite).<br></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"><div><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto">Also, it seems that your bot is using add:housename for numeric values<br></div><div dir="auto">that almost certainly are addr:housenumber<br></div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>In the State Address Register of Latvia, both numbers and names are within one field. In address notations, when there is no street, all numbers and names are put in double quotes as per <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://likumi.lv/ta/id/324387#p43" target="_blank">Articel 43.1. of the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 455 of June 29, 2021</a>. Also note that in <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://likumi.lv/ta/id/324387#p40" target="_blank">Article 40</a> on address notation in small villages without streets, no housenumbers are mentioned, only housenames. <br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">OK<br></div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="auto">Thus, in Latvia, it makes sense to use addr:housename for all cases when there is no street<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">No. addr:housename is for house names (in this case tag is well named).<br></div><div dir="auto">It is not for house numbers in any case at all.<br></div><div dir="auto">Even if internal State Address Register of Latvia does not distinguish between names<br></div><div dir="auto">and numbers, that does not change that OSM distinguishes between them.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For example <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/237853362" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/237853362</a> and<br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9888037895" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9888037895</a> have addr:housename=1</div><div dir="auto">is at least extremely suspicious.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And if you mention that "both numbers and names are within one field" then it needs<br></div><div dir="auto">to split into proper fields during import.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Rather than assume that OSM tagging follows Latvian legislation and <br></div><div dir="auto">redefining addr:housename to "house names and whatever<br></div><div dir="auto">is stored in Latvian state databases in the same field as house names".<br></div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Read my previous answers and rethink again your ideas about rolling back.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I am still pretty sure that addr:housename=1 is a clear tagging mistake.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">"In the State Address Register of Latvia, both numbers and names are within one field"<br></div><div dir="auto">does not mean that they should or can be stored in the same OSM tag.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(I would be more likely to classify it as "weird local traditions" if that would be discussed<br></div><div dir="auto">before edit and actually planned, now it looks like "it is feature not a bug")<br></div><div dir="auto">(I am not planning to make any rollbacks personally, but I expect that it will continue<br></div><div dir="auto">to break processing of OSM data in Latvia and sooner or later it will be fixed)<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>OK,
I'll separate housenames that look like numbers (also with letters etc., e.g., 1A, 1/3) into addr:housenumber
as it doesn't complicate the ability to construct proper address
notation much and even in legislation it's called number in some (but
not all) places as it looks like one (<span><a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://likumi.lv/ta/id/324387#p43" target="_blank">Articel 43.1.</a></span>).</div></div></div>