[OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Addressing Question
osm at inbox.org
Thu Nov 12 22:30:54 GMT 2009
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski <balrogg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian hasn't (yet) mentioned whether this data he deals with contains
> potential address ranges or actual ranges, so I assumed actual.
The fact that it's tagged on the line segments representing the road
centerline pretty much guarantees that it's potential. I highly doubt
they're splitting the line segment every single time a number gets
> I agree it may be useful to have the potential assigned range in the db,
> too, using whatever tagging (or in a separate db, since this is not
> stuff "on the ground").
I can see keeping it in a separate db, and really I'm leaning toward
that as being the best option.
What are the advantages of having this in the OSM db? When the roads
change, you're going to have to either re-survey the data or throw out
the address ranges anyway. The address ranges are pretty much only
useful within the context of the original road centerlines. Geocoding
or reverse-geocoding software can connect between the two databases
using latitude/longitude pairs. I can't really see any point in
More information about the talk