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

Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com
Tue Oct 15 08:23:10 UTC 2013

On 14 October 2013 22:25, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd still merge the address from a point to a polygon if you are sure that
> the address applies to the whole polygon. Entrances are mapped with a
> different tag in OSM: entrance=main/yes etc.

I agree with this, for both reasons. The address should go on the polygon.

I also want to reflect on what the alternative implies. First, it
creates a new set of implied relationship between address point and
building polygon - that it some cases exact positioning means nothing,
and yet in others it implies a building entrance by proximity. This is
really hard for volunteer mappers to understand (e.g. only applies to
NYC, isn't indicated by any editing tool). We should instead be
explicit - if the address applies to the polygon, it should be on the
polygon; if we know where the entrance is, it should be tagged as a
building entrance.

Secondly, it would imply that adding address information to a building
polygon is the correct thing to do, everywhere except NYC. If any
mapper gets "told off" for mapping using OSM conventions instead of
NYC GIS conventions, I'd be furious!

So yes, knowing where the entrance is is useful information, but it
would be better to tag such information explicitly, rather than having
it there by inference. If the data is not reliable enough to show that
there is an entrance (as Frederik discussed) then we're not actually
losing any information by tagging the building anyway.


More information about the Imports mailing list