[Tagging] Double and misfitting house numbers

Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 19 09:13:47 UTC 2013

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com>

> That seems okay to me.

Not for me. I think the address is a "feature" by ifself, not an
attribute of other features (like 'name'). For instance, a routing
software cares about a unique address when only the address is
provided. In this case, it is more important to drive the car (of
walker or biker) to the entrance or facade than pointing to one of the
shops in the building (which might lead to a wrong street).
And I think we should follow the principle "one feature, one OSM element":

> We don't map to the renderer, so if it's both, it's both.

But the renderer is also a mean to detect duplicates ;-)

> If you feel strongly it should only be on one, let it be on the shop,
> and if two shops share the same housenumber, so be it, because it's
> true.

You have 2 other possibilities : link the shops with the address
element with a relation (already mentionned). Or draw a building (or
room) polygone for each address and attach the address to this polygon
or the entrance node.

> No, it's one building, but I live in New York city, and buildings here
> are often a mix of retail and residential, with retail on the bottom
> floors and residential on the top floors, and they share the same
> housenumber.

Correct. And it is much simplier for all data consumers if we put the
address only once, and not sometimes on shops and sometimes not on the

> I don't like complex relations, either as a mapper or as a tool
> author. Working with them as a mapper is a pain, and writing tools
> that understand them is also hard.

We try to use relations only when we have no alternative. Drawing a
simple polygon with a closed way is easier than creating a
multipolygon relation. For addresses, most of them have a simple 1:1
relationship with a building (probable not in urban areas). We could
accept address relations when the relationship between address,
building and POI's is not 1:1. (but again, the relation is one option,
the other is a polygon per address)


More information about the Tagging mailing list