<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>It says in the proposal the the vertical bar is an alternative. You can still use hypens, however vertical bar is more explicit. With a addr:range however hypens should be enough.</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>23 Dec 2020, 22:59 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>As I understand, it would mean that 40-48 range would need to be<br></div><div>recorded as addr:housenumber=40|48 rather than more natural<br></div><div>addr:housenumber=40-48<br></div><div><br></div><div>Dec 23, 2020, 21:06 by tod@fitchfamily.org:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;" class="tutanota_quote"><div>Vertical bar character is already in use for turn lanes[1]. Not a big deal to type it, at least on a US keyboard. Certainly easier to type it than to enter two key/value pairs for the same information. Seems like a poor reason to avoid it since it is one of the few characters that seems unlikely to exist on an address in the wild.<br></div><div><br></div><div>[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Turning_indications_per_lane<br></div><blockquote><div>On Dec 23, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div>I am not so happy about it.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Typing that would be extremely unnatural.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Maybe better have additional add:range:from= addr:range:to=<br></div><div>for ranges?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Dec 23, 2020, 20:10 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:<br></div><div>Im gping to update the proposal tonight, when I have time.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I currently think suggesting a new character, | , used to explicitally specify ranges. The advantage of this is that ypu can interpolation hypenated addresses, e.g. :<br></div><div><br></div><div>addr:housenumber="19-100|19-200"<br></div><div><br></div><div>Would imply : 19-100, 19-102, 19-104, 19-106 etc.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Renderers can use "19-100 to 19-200"<br></div><div><br></div><div>Hypens would be accepted, but this is clearer.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The problem is that now you will have to get every single renderer and geocoder to understand this (which will take months ,even years).<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>--<br></div><div>23 Dec 2020, 16:29 by lonvia@denofr.de:<br></div><div>On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 07:05:10PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:<br></div><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>It's better. It would resolve half the issue. addr:housenumber would still<br></div><div>have a double interpretation but it's the smaller of the two issues.<br></div><div><br></div><div>addr:housenumber:range would capture a bit better what the tag means<br></div><div>but it starts to get uncomfortably long.<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>That would only make sense, when you define addr:range as being<br></div><div>applicable to housenumbers with hyphens only. However your definition<br></div><div>above was imo more sensible:<br></div><div>"applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber"<br></div><div><br></div><div>If you look at all nodes and ways with addr:housenumbers 99.999% have<br></div><div>a addr:range=no. So that makes more sense as a default then.<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?<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>My guess would be that the main reason that people started using the<br></div><div>hyphen notation with addr:housenumber is that they wanted something<br></div><div>human readable on the map. And addr:housenumber was already rendered.<br></div><div><br></div><div>With that in mind, I think there is a reasonable way forward even for<br></div><div>a addr:range tag as you suggest and also for a separate<br></div><div>addr:housenumber_range=1-15 like I would prefer. For both it is relatively<br></div><div>easy to support a new agreed on proposal while still using the old<br></div><div>behaviour where the new one is not yet implemented. So the transition would<br></div><div>be:<br></div><div><br></div><div>1. Agree on proposal.<br></div><div>2. Get openstreetmap-carto, Nominatim and others to support new proposal.<br></div><div>3. Tell mappers about proposal.<br></div><div>4. Wait a few years.<br></div><div>5. Drop support for addr:housenumbers with interpolations.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Sarah<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,<br></div><div>IpswichMapper<br></div><div>--<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by lonvia@denofr.de:<br></div><div><br></div><div>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:<br></div><div>><br></div><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><div>>><br></div><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><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><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></blockquote><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div> </body>
</html>