[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - reference_point

[Felix Delattre]

Thanks for the feedback!!

On 06/17/2013 09:53 AM, Pieren wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Johan Jönsson <johan.j at goteborg.cc>
>> Could it be possible to use addr: as is the case with all other adress-
>> references?
>> addr:reference_point=Little_tree
> +1

Actually we started this proposal as "addr:reference_point=*":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:reference_point

But we realized in the first conversation on the list, that "addr:*"
belong always to the addresses and isn't anything that would define the
reference points. Johan described this in the following mail from last year:

On 03/26/2012 02:25 PM, Johan Jönsson wrote:
> [...] I have been looking at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses and it seems that the
> key addr: is used on each and every single address. an example, the
> addr:street isn´t used on the street but on the surrounding buildings
> that uses that street in their adress. with a similar approach,
> addr:reference_point would be used on all houses having "the railway
> station" as a reference.
>
> My conclusion is that you should not use addr: for this tag. I suggest
> to use only reference_point=yes or reference_point=address. [...]

Check the archives for the whole conversation:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2012-March/009633.html

Further, we have to take in account that one place could have several
reference points. For example I have three reference points in my area I
could use to tell my address. This is all a little bit more "flexible"
here and people can freely choose which reference points to use. So
besides that, specifying "addr:reference_point=*" on every building
seems to be "micromapping" and a not trivial task.

The approach of this proposal is thought to be much more simple: We just
want to mark reference points as what they are, so they could be used in
routing systems, etc..

> Also, there is no reason to restrict its usage on nodes. Ways (e.g. a
> building) or relations (e.g. a "site") may also apply here.

Good point. I changed this.