<div dir="ltr">I thought the consensus from an earlier discussion here was<div><br></div><div>1) addr:housenumber + addr:street on building (not as node)</div><div>2) for those that want to do it: associatedStreet relation with name, postalcode, city</div>
<div><br></div><div>That's the way I'm doing it since then.</div><div><br></div><div>After the meeting in Lier in February I wrote a script that converts the waypoint files that I make with my GPS into an osm-file. It looks a lot like the one you can download now with AGIV/Crab data</div>
<div><br></div><div>My experience with starting from that coverted waypoint file and ending up with 1 & 2 above:</div><div>(Using JOSM, + you need building plugin & utilstool2 plugin & terrace tool)</div><div>
<br></div><div>1. there is no building in osm, it's a single house. You can use the building tool with the right configuration.</div><div>2. no building, semi-detached house (tweewoonst). Building tool works for first half. Some more work (I can explain in a session) for the second half</div>
<div>3. no building, terrace (rijhuizen). Could be done with e.g. terrace tool without housenumbers and then merging the data. Using the terrace tool without the imported data makes much more sense here (goes a lot faster)</div>
<div><br></div><div>4. There is an outline, even the individual houses. Merge each outline with the correct housenumber</div><div>5. There is an outline (typical not a nice rectangle) for all houses in the terrace. First split, then merge as in 4</div>
<div>6. There is a multipolygon (e.g. for "huizenblok" in cities). I suggest dropping the multipolygon and to start drawing the individual houses with 1-3</div><div><br></div><div>Overall it's a slow job, requiring a lot of steps. In the end I went back to the terracer and address interpolation tools (to generate individual housenumbers), because that seems to go faster.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Don't forget that the building outlines are often not very detailed (based on Bing or 3D shapes), so they might require tweaking as well.</div><div><br></div><div>And what about POIs ? I recommend to add addr:street and addr:housenumber to them as well, but keep them as individual points within the building outline. I see this approach also on other mailing lists. The main reason is that the building and the POI do not share other properties than the address. I repeat the address data, because there is no tool that assigns the address from the building to the POIs inside it. I don't expect to see support, as many countries do not assign the housenumber to the building.</div>
<div><br></div><div>@Kurt, during my surveys I found already quite some houses that are not in the AGIV/Crab database. Others have reported similar issues. We were aware of this when we got the data. Someone (a "Ben " I thought) mentioned that the cities are now responsible for updating the data. The list of cities that committed to this is short. (10 or so). The others are still working on this. The GIS responsible got in touch with Gilbert because she is doing exactly the same thing: tracing buildings form aerial images and assigning tags.</div>
<div><br></div><div>@Peter: welcome and thanks for your interest. If you wish we could setup a google hangout this Friday to get you more familiar with JOSM and the tools I mention above. We could do this even without the data from Crab. I still have some survey data that I can use as an example. It could be in Dutch or English.</div>
<div><br></div><div>regards</div><div><br></div><div>m </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Jo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:winfixit@gmail.com" target="_blank">winfixit@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>side note: I prefer to put the source tags (AGIV;CRAB) on the changeset instead of on each and every separate object we're adding.<br>
<br></div>I'm sorry about adding Herentalsesteenweg. I should have read the message before trying to click through to test it... Anyway, it's properly attributed and it's mostly manual labour anyway. It's far less automated than the UrbIS integration, as we still have to draw the building outlines ourselves.<br>
<br></div><div>I had to create the associatedStreet relation myself. Was that intentional?<br></div><div><br></div>Polyglot<br></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2013/10/15 Jo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:winfixit@gmail.com" target="_blank">winfixit@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>This works quite well in combination with the building tools plugin. Switch on: use address nodes under buildings. Then use x to extrude to get the shape of the building right.<br>
<br></div>A hangout to demonstrate this would be a good idea. I think the street name is missing. I prefer to add information about postcode, village and country through associatedStreet relations.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>Jo<br><div><br><br></div></font></span></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/10/14 Kurt Roeckx <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kurt@roeckx.be" target="_blank">kurt@roeckx.be</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 01:31:02PM -0700, Ben Laenen wrote:<br>
><br>
> I'd add them, our administrative borders aren't all very accurate and it's not<br>
> like they always have a single postal code in every boundary, see Antwerp for<br>
> example.<br>
<br>
</div>That just looks like a good reason to properly map those<br>
administrative borders to me. But I guess it's currently not easy<br>
to see what the CRAB data says which postal code it belongs to if<br>
we don't see it anywhere. If we do add it, I suggest only in the<br>
assosiatedStreet relation.<br>
<br>
As far as I know there really shouldn't be a problem adding<br>
boundary=postal_code relations for places like Antwerpen.<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Kurt<br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>