[Tagging] Best practice regarding addr:housenumber and POIs

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Fri Oct 16 15:24:24 BST 2009

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:32 AM, Randy Thomson <rwtnospam-osm at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Markus Lindholm
>> <markus.lindholm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I guess the follow-up question then is: what if there are multiple
>> > POIs that have the same addr:housenumber? Should it be duplicated on
>> > all the POIs?
>> If you're going to add a distinguishing address feature, such as
>> "addr:suite=*", you probably should.  Otherwise, if the POIs are all
>> located in one building, and all have the same address, it's better
>> (and maybe even easier) to tag the building rather than multiple
>> points within the building, no?
>> (If the POIs are in different buildings, have the same housenumber,
>> and don't have any distinguishing address features...eww, that could
>> be a problem.)
>> Or should suite numbers be part of addr:housenumber?  "5102 Belmere
>> Pkwy Apt 2" gets housenumber='5102' or housenumber='5102 Apt 2'?
> If it is truly a point of INTEREST, would you not want to tag it
> uniquely rather than just tagging the building?

Yes, you'd still want to tag the point uniquely, but not with an addr
tag, unless it has a unique address (such as a suite number).

> How about a relation
> between the building with "addr:housenumber=123", and the multiple
> poi's inside it, which might include "shop=toys, addr:suite=2A"?

You'd save the duplication of addr:housenumber (and addr:street) on
every single point, but you'd add the complication of dealing with

I dunno, I could go either way, but it's probably easier to just do
the duplication, and the disk space difference is probably negligible.

Alternatively, we could always rely on data users checking to see
whether the points are spatially within a building polygon, and
building indexes if necessary to make that check more quickly.

More information about the Tagging mailing list