[Tagging] Reasons for associatedStreet?

[David Paleino]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:31:22 +0200, David Paleino wrote:

> Hello list,
> while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm-it at oftc,
> we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all?
> (Karlsruhe schema)
> 
> I've always used it to associate housenumbers to the given street (I found a
> relation more error-proof than addr:street), but then we thought then no new
> type of relation is needed for this ([0] and [1], for example).
> 
>  [0]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Street
>  [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways
> 
> In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together (various
> segments + "links"). That's Relation:route, with route=road. What about a
> "house" role to include housenumbers there?
> 
> [..]

Ok, after some more discussion on #osm-it at oftc , we kind-of-agreed that
route=road isn't suitable for all cases, and there are places in the world
where it's not suitable at all (because not all streets with the same name are
proper "routes").

So we settled that Relation:street, as proposed in [0], would be more suitable,
both for grouping segments together (yes Simone and Nathan, just for the sake
of it, because I think it's convenient to keep them logically together with a
relation), _AND_ for grouping a way with its housenumbers.

This would obviously deprecate Relation:associatedStreet in favour of
Relation:street.

David

-- 
 . ''`.   Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100901/8aac4261/attachment.pgp>