[Imports] NYC building + address import - to merge or not to merge?

Ian Dees ian.dees at gmail.com
Mon Oct 14 16:59:24 UTC 2013


I would tend to agree with you to keep address nodes separate from
buildings. It makes mapping POI easier, makes geocoders more accurate, and
is generally easier to work with as a dataset.

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com> wrote:

> (This is BCC to tagging at osm.org, conversation to happen on
> imports at openstreetmap.org.)
>
> At the NYC building and address import we're facing the following question:
>
> **In cases where there is one address point per building, should we merge
> the address information onto the building polygon and toss the address
> point?**
>
> Originally the answer was: yes.
>
> Now there's reason to revisit this decision: the data steward (Colin
> Reilly from NYC GIS) told me that NYC GIS took great care to place
> addresses at about where the entrance of the building sits.
>
> This makes me think that there's value in not tossing the address location
> information but keep it in all cases, even if there is only one address per
> building.
>
> Here is a comparison of the two options. I'd like to discuss and decide at
> tonight's imports hangout.
>
> ## Option 1: Merge addresses into buildings where possible
>
> In cases where there is one address point within a building polygon, we
> take address attributes, assign it to the building polygon and toss the
> address point.
>
> Pros:
>
> a) This is how a lot of buildings are done in OSM
> b) Not regarding standing practice, merging addresses into buildings is an
> exception from the generally applicable method of doing separate address
> points.
>
> Cons:
>
> a) we lose data
> b) makes it harder for NYC GIS to leverage OSM
>
> ## Option 2: Always keep address points separate
>
> In this case we never merge addresses to building polygons, instead always
> keep them as separate entities.
>
> Pros:
>
> a) this is the NYC GIS way, making it nicer for GIS folks to use OSM
> b) this is the generally applicable method. No matter whether we have one
> or multiple addresses you can expect to find a separate node carrying
> address information.
> c) retains useful information
>
> Cons:
>
> a) Diverges (but does not violate [1]) common OSM practice
>
> Note: it has been suggested to use the address location information to tag
> an entrance. Unfortunately the data is not consistent enough to do this.
>
> ## Recommendation
>
> I'd really like to hear people's inputs here. Right now I'm leaning
> towards Option 2 as it
>
> - retains valuable information
> - does not violate OSM practice
>
> ## Status quo
>
> Note right now we've imported data in both formats :p I'm not worried
> about this and I'll commit to make sure in the end we're consistent. Right
> now the import is paused because of this open question.
>
> Ref: https://github.com/osmlab/nycbuildings/issues/15
>
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#How_to_map_addresses
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20131014/b3b27f41/attachment.html>


More information about the Imports mailing list