[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Feb 25 12:14:05 UTC 2015

2015-01-23 8:55 GMT+01:00 Swen Wacker <swen.wacker at gmail.com>:

> 2015-01-22 19:44 GMT+01:00 fly <lowflight66 at googlemail.com>:
>> In Germany the address always belongs to the plot and not to the
>> building and they are assigned in advance.
> This is not correct. The decision is up to the local government. In most
> local "Hausnummer-Satzung" (by-law about housenumber) that I've looked at
> there is a preference for buildings.  German-speaking might look huere:
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=472337#p472337

If you look for "Hausnummernsatzung" it is clear you'll find likely
building related stuff ;-)
Have a look for "Grundstücksnummerierung" to find plot related information.

There is national law (BauGB) that clearly states that the basis for all
numbering is the plot (§126): "(3) Der Eigentümer hat sein Grundstück mit
der von der Gemeinde festgesetzten Nummer zu versehen. Im Übrigen gelten
die landesrechtlichen Vorschriften."

The lower admin entities (Land and Gemeinde) can and typically will have
regulation how to reduce ambiguities (e.g. numbering of buildings,
staircases, entrances, etc. if needed), and often details about shape, size
and illumination of the numbers and where to put them exactly and how the
system is working (consecutive numbering or even / odd numbers per street
side, etc.).

E.g. the Nummerierungsverordnung Berlin:

In the case of Baden-Württemberg, there are no regulations on
"Landes-level" concerning housenumbers (AFAIK), but the municipalities have
their own laws ("Gemeindesatzung").
E.g. this is the regulation that states that in Karlsruhe you have to put
housenumbers on your _plot_, if it is used for residential or commercial

I have not yet found any text that doesn't state that the plot is the main
unit for numbering (and I doubt it exists, because it would conflict with
federal law). Clearly, if there are numbers for several entrances (and
often there are), you should consider mapping them there.

Maybe our current scheme is not sufficient for mapping all those
subtleties. I could imagine having 2 entities: an area which has a certain
address, and an entrance node by which you can access this area.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150225/05ddc2bd/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list