[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Dan S <danstowell+osm at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was thinking about this solution too. The addrN scheme is really
> quite awkward so it'd be nice to recommend something like simply
> having two nodes/multipolygons with exactly the same overlapping
> geometry. However, this gets horrible too: if both of the addresses
> refer to a pub, should both objects be amenity=pub? (No!) Should they
> be grouped under a relation which holds amenity=pub other properties?
> Maybe, but that's getting just as awkward as addrN... It looks like
> there's a problem to be solved, and none of the solutions is pleasant.
> Hence I abstain ;)
>

As far as I can understand, this issue only really becomes a problem with
tagging an amenity, shop, office, etc. It made me wonder how the business
advertises and get mail. I can't imagine businesses using two different
addresses. Then again I've never lived anywhere with this problem. Has
anyone asked the business owners which address they use?

Rather than add to the tagging scheme, I think we should first try to
understand it from the business viewpoint.

If the business only uses one of the addresses, then the problem is solved
with two nodes, ideally inside a building polygon.

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150115/22c91f83/attachment.html>