[Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularly skipped numbers

[Anthony]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:
> My suggestion is to use a new interpolation value; something like
> interpolation=step + step=4 (step=2 would produce the same result as
> odd/even, depending on the house number it starts with; step=1 would
> have the same effect as all).

I'd agree with that if the numbers 2, 6, 10, etc. were being reserved
for different lots.  But in this example, the lots are really each
being assigned two numbers.

Something which perhaps should be clarified is that Randy said that "the large
majority of housing is single family".  Does this mean that duplexes
are disallowed in most areas, and you are only going to use this
scheme where duplexes are disallowed (and keep it up to date as zoning
changes and/or variances are granted)?  Or does this mean that most
houses on a particular street are single family, and a few here and
there are duplexes?

Either way, I would suggest that simply using an even/odd
interpolation is the better solution.  In the former case, it saves
you from updating things every time there's a zoning change or
variance granted.  And in the latter case, it's just plain the only
correct thing to do.

As I said in my previous message, an interpolation explicitly omits
the number of houses.  In my town we have plenty of blocks (especially
in commercial areas) with addressing like "1701, 1733, 1751, 1755".

In fact, I'll give a real example from my town: 14802, 14602, 14502,
14402, 14324, 14308, 14002.