[Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
linux at delattre.de
Sat Mar 24 20:38:05 GMT 2012
I started working on a draft for a proposal:
Please help me!
On 03/21/2012 01:09 PM, Felix Delattre wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 07:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> I seem to recall having read either the articles Felix posted, or
>> similar ones. The point is, in some countries, these informal
>> descriptions actually *are* genuine addresses. There's no other
>> addressing system in place, so over time they become the de facto
>> standard. So what I think Felix is suggesting is being able to define
>> the reference points that addresses are constructed from, in exactly
>> the same way as we define name=* for a highway=*, or for a place=*.
>> I think it's worthy of discussion get this right. landmark=* is
>> problematic because as noted there actually may not be a landmark
>> (like the little tree which is actually not visible). Some kind of
>> addr:reference_point=*? Or maybe a kind of place=*?
> This is exactly the point what I wanted to touch and consult how we can
> define the best generic way. Then documenting it and putting into
> practice in these countries.
> I would like to recap:
> * The tag landmark is not suitable for all possible reference points
> * A new tag would be a good option
> addr:reference_point=* or reference_point=*
> What could be the right values? true, yes, popular, confirmed,...? Any
> On 03/21/2012 08:38 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On 3/21/2012 9:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>>> The harder question is if you want to try and define actual addresses,
>>> like actually putting a unique address description on each dwelling
>>> ("From the church, 400m south", "From the church, 380m south with the
>>> blue door"). But maybe leave that harder question till later :)
>> This is where I get confused. Is the "address" created like this
>> actually unique, or are there any number of descriptions that are
>> equally valid?
>> (Aside: I'm reminded of metes and bounds descriptions of property:
>> begin at the stake in the old tree at the northeast corner of Bill's
>> property, run south 59 degrees east for 600 chains for the point of
>> beginning, then run by the following courses... Here of course there
>> are many possible starting points and ways to describe the route to
>> the point of beginning.)
> This goes way to far and, in my opinion, is too complex for considering
> it for mapping. I don't think it is necessary (or even possible) to use
> exact addresses. Having at least reference points marked in a way
> computers can process them would be a big improvement. Let's stick to that.
> Thank you for all your responses.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging