[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*

Dmitry Kiselev dkiselev at osm.me
Mon Jan 19 05:46:20 UTC 2015


 Markus, there is no problems with distinct addresses at all 
if you treat them as first class citizen in your database.


Table address
id, scheme, hn, street, quarter, neighbourhood, city, e.t.c

Table POI
id, name, brand, operator, something, else

Table POI_Addr
POI (POI.id), addr (address.id)

So you'll get distinct addresses and distinct POI with multiple addresses.

Of course keeping two addresses (or three or more, look at the Vilnus) is more 
difficult than one address. But cause of this difficulties isn't an OSM tagging schema
cause of this difficulties is multiple addressing itself.

Me and Friedrich do not propose to trow away addr points or conscription numbers.
There is a demand for addressing schema based on tags, and such
schemes pop up every year. 

So I want, when somebody will find that he need to map 2 or more addresses
and points (or anything else based on fake geometry) doesn't fit him, I want him to 
use addr2 and not addr:2 or addr_2 or street2+housenumber2.

And if we don't have description for multiple addresses mapping via tags, it will 
be created and used without proposals and RFCs.


Sun, 18 Jan 2015 22:23:30 +0100 от Markus Lindholm <markus.lindholm at gmail.com>:
>On 18 January 2015 at 22:11, Dan S < danstowell+osm at gmail.com > wrote:
>> 2015-01-18 20:52 GMT+00:00 Markus Lindholm < markus.lindholm at gmail.com >:
>>> On 17 January 2015 at 22:16, Friedrich Volkmann < bsd at volki.at > wrote:
>>>> With the addrN schema, we need one object (a node tagged shop=* and
>>>> addrN:*=*) for a shop.
>>>> With the provides_feature relation we need one node for the shop, one node
>>>> for each address, and one relation.
>>>
>>> And if there are two shops that both have the same address? Then your
>>> scheme breaks down as you would end up with a database with two
>>> distinct nodes but same address. Clearly a bad thing and against the
>>> principle of 'One feature - one element'
>>>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
>>
>> This criticism is mistaken. (The wiki page even gives a counterexample
>> of "More than one of something on the same site" which is rather
>> similar to "two shops with the same address".) We have lots of
>> examples in OSM of two distinct objects with the same address - it's
>> quite common in real life, and if it is a problem then it's nothing to
>> do with "addrN", it would be a problem with a large portion of our
>> "addr" data!
>
>I think that comes down to how addresses are viewed, either as a
>proper feature in their one right or as an attribute to some other
>feature. I think addresses are proper features, so a distinct address
>should be found only once in the database.
>
>/Markus
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150119/d20acbad/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list