[Tagging] AddrN

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 21.01.2015 13:00, Andrew Shadura wrote:
>>> if that's the case, what's wrong with creating a node on the building for
>>> each additional valid address?  People looking for an amenity could look up
>>> closest POIs after finding a secondary address.  It's not a clean situation,
>>
>> It's a "best guess" approach, delivering lots of false positives, because
>> the scope of address nodes is undefined. The address may be valid for the
>> whole building, or only part of the building, or even for multiple buildings
>> (take my postal address as an example).
> 
> But that's not precisely true. The scope of an address node inside a
> building outline is this building. If you want to specify an address
> for a part of a building only, just split that building.

That's a well-meant advice, but a big portion of buildings in the database
are not split. That's because mappers walking to the street writing down
housenumbers do not measure building lengths, or the seam between two
buildings parts may not even be visible from the outside. You often cannot
see it on arial images either. OGD may help, but many buildings were mapped
before OGD became available for the respective regions.

Moreover, I am not aware of any wiki page stating that the scope of an
address node is the whole building.

The approach comparing address nodes to building outlines may be perfect in
theory, but you'll always get tons of false positives with real data.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann       http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria