[Imports] Latvia-bot

[Dāvis Kļaviņš]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 13:43, Mateusz Konieczny via Imports <
imports at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Jan 3, 2023, 07:29 by davisklavins at gmail.com:
>
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 at 22:32, Mateusz Konieczny via Imports <
> imports at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Not sure what you mean by redefining tags.
>
> As I understand you started to used addr:place for cases where
> there is street-indexed housenumber and no place-indexed housenumber
> and it is not a conscription number.
>

OK, different usage than documented in wiki. Yes, it was for all cases when
an address was located within a village, either as a housenumber assigned
to a street, or as a housename without a street. I changed addr:place to
addr:city in all cases, but it might be that addr:place should have been
retained for housenames without a street. Also, it's not clear in these
cases, if addr:city can be retained, or not (wiki says it can be, but Sarah
wrote the opposite).


> Also, it seems that your bot is using add:housename for numeric values
> that almost certainly are addr:housenumber
>
> In the State Address Register of Latvia, both numbers and names are within
> one field. In address notations, when there is no street, all numbers and
> names are put in double quotes as per Articel 43.1. of the Regulation of
> the Cabinet of Ministers No. 455 of June 29, 2021
> <https://likumi.lv/ta/id/324387#p43>. Also note that in Article 40
> <https://likumi.lv/ta/id/324387#p40> on address notation in small
> villages without streets, no housenumbers are mentioned, only housenames.
>
> OK
>
> Thus, in Latvia, it makes sense to use addr:housename for all cases when
> there is no street
>
> No. addr:housename is for house names (in this case tag is well named).
> It is not for house numbers in any case at all.
> Even if internal State Address Register of Latvia does not distinguish
> between names
> and numbers, that does not change that OSM distinguishes between them.
>
> For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/237853362 and
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9888037895 have addr:housename=1
> is at least extremely suspicious.
>
> And if you mention that "both numbers and names are within one field" then
> it needs
> to split into proper fields during import.
>
> Rather than assume that OSM tagging follows Latvian legislation and
> redefining addr:housename to "house names and whatever
> is stored in Latvian state databases in the same field as house names".
>
> Read my previous answers and rethink again your ideas about rolling back.
>
> I am still pretty sure that addr:housename=1 is a clear tagging mistake.
>
> "In the State Address Register of Latvia, both numbers and names are
> within one field"
> does not mean that they should or can be stored in the same OSM tag.
>
> (I would be more likely to classify it as "weird local traditions" if that
> would be discussed
> before edit and actually planned, now it looks like "it is feature not a
> bug")
> (I am not planning to make any rollbacks personally, but I expect that it
> will continue
> to break processing of OSM data in Latvia and sooner or later it will be
> fixed)
>

OK, I'll separate housenames that look like numbers (also with letters
etc., e.g., 1A, 1/3) into addr:housenumber as it doesn't complicate the
ability to construct proper address notation much and even in legislation
it's called number in some (but not all) places as it looks like one (Articel
43.1. <https://likumi.lv/ta/id/324387#p43>).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20230103/caa6073e/attachment-0001.htm>