<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".<br></div><div><br></div><div>This new tag:<br></div><div><br></div><div>- applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber<br></div><div>- "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range<br></div><div>- "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted<br></div><div>- "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).<br></div><div>- "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.<br></div><div><br></div><div>"addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.<br></div><div><br></div><div>However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")<br></div><div><br></div><div>What are your thoughts on this?</div><div><br></div><div>Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,<br></div><div>IpswichMapper</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by lonvia@denofr.de:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes<br></div><div><br></div><div>Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.<br></div><div><br></div><div>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to<br></div><div>support it in Nominatim in the past. See<br></div><div>https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and<br></div><div>addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:<br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs<br></div><div>to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range<br></div><div>you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion<br></div><div>to the addr:housenumber tag.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two<br></div><div>different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a<br></div><div>building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no<br></div><div>housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line<br></div><div>and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.<br></div><div>But I might be fighting wind mills here.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Sarah<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div>Tagging mailing list<br></div><div>Tagging@openstreetmap.org<br></div><div>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div> </body>
</html>