[Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.

Erik Johansson erjohan at gmail.com
Mon Dec 21 17:45:34 GMT 2009


On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/21 Erik Johansson <erjohan at gmail.com>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Then why don't you use "place=locality, name=45-29" if that's all you
>> > want.
>>
>> Thanks, that's a good idea (if it works),
>
> what do you mean by: if it works? All alternative ways to the well
> established addressing scheme don't "work". It's easy as that.
> place=locality is generally used to give names to localities that don't
> match other established features (can be lots, hills, named localities,
> etc.), IMHO a locality-node "name=45-29" to express housenumbers is wrong.
>
>>
>> >> Does anyone have any improvements to make this scheme better?
>> >
>> > Yes, use the same scheme that everyone else uses as well ;-)
>
> +1
>
>>
>> I don't care about geocoders, I will fix it but I'm not that keen on
>> getting geocoders to work.
>
> as soon as someone else is editing in your area it will be conflicting
> anyway. I just don't see the point of entering useful information in a way
> it will not be retrieved...

But it is retrieved in the only way I care about namely the rendered
map. It could be retrieved by geocoders as well, with small changes,
it was this change I wanted help with. Note, place=locality seems even
better after what you said, or do you have a better tag combo that
works?

So these are the issues
1. I interpolate but can't only see one end...
2. I will only enter a number, because a human can use it.
3. I will use the housenumber scheme since that works at the moment
and this is what I'm mapping.



-- 
/emj




More information about the Tagging mailing list