[Tagging] Tagging: minimum required tags

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Fri, 18 May 2012, Tobias Johansson wrote:

> I see your point concerning you don't have to do it that way. But I
> don't really se any reason for not doing it that way? And if it makes
> it simpler?
> 
> But I have no big objection for what you say. I myself have mapped a
> lot of houses the way you stated before I saw some other presentation
> Lulu-Ann made and thought "hadn't thought of that".
> 
> And isn't all taggig done according to diffrent peoples opinions? :)
> (just a thought).

While it is not that harmful to have addresses in the entrance nodes if 
you have only single address, it gets quite "challenging" in places where 
a building can have more than one address, cases for even 4 valid 
addresses exists (we're yet to find a 5 address case but even those would 
be possible at least in theory). ...So it's not just about what is 
somebody's opinion but there are situation some approaches fail to solve 
in a reasonable way (and this problem was explained multiple times to 
Lulu-Ann but the solutions while retaining the addresses in the entrances 
proposed were lousy hacks). But obviously if the address really is for a 
entrance instead of the building, it probably makes more sense to put that 
to entrance itself.

-- 
 i.