[Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

Johannes Singler johannes at singler.name
Wed Aug 15 05:43:48 UTC 2018


Hi Marc,

Am 15.08.2018 um 02:38 schrieb marc marc:
> I din't understand your funny addr:park and so on...

I'm just saying there is no absolutely blatant one-to-one correlation 
addr:street<->highway

> addr:street when it's the name of a highway
> and addr:place when it's the name of a not-a-highway

Is this an established rule, or did you just come up with it?
The respective Wiki article
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:place
says something else:
"When using addr:place=*, make sure there is a matching place=* object 
of the same name."

Johannes

> Le 14. 08. 18 à 17:27, Johannes Singler a écrit :
>> Hi
>>
>> I understand that it is useful to use addr:place for neighborhoods,
>> hamlets, and isolated dwellings etc.  But here, it is a quite regular
>> street address, just that the referenced feature is not a highway, but a
>> square (we could limit it to place=square).  So why should this be ruled
>> out categorically?  It does not read addr:highway, does it?
>>
>> I think OSM Inspector should check that there is *some* entity close by
>> that matches the street name, to avoid spelling mistakes etc.  In
>> another case, the street name actually references a park, e.g here
>> <http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&lon=7.61170&lat=47.55898&zoom=18&overlays=street_not_found>
>>
>> So should I reference that with addr:park?  Or map the park as a place,
>> or as a highway?  Rather not, eh?
>>
>> So I propose to be more flexible here.  Too many "false positives" in
>> the QA tools are frustrating to the users, and shadow the real mistakes.
>>
>> Regards
>> Johannes
>>
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I'd rather use addr:place="Square Name" in that case. In don't agree
>>> that addr:place is 'intended for larger objects like "villages,
>>> islands, territorial zones"'. I also use addr:place e.g. for
>>> settlements (place=neighbourhood) or hamlets, if there is no street
>>> with the addresses' name (example: [^1]).
>>>
>>> [^1]:
>>> <http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&lon=7.59448&lat=47.54290&zoom=18&overlays=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Markus
>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 21:05, Toggenburger Lukas
>>> <Lukas.Toggenburger at htwchur.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I'm the main author of the address view of Geofabrik's OSM inspector:
>>>> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses , a QA tool for OSM,
>>>> whose sourcecode you can find at https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/
>>>>
>>>> Some time ago I received the following issue and subsequent pull
>>>> request:
>>>>
>>>> - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/issues/111
>>>> - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/pull/115
>>>>
>>>> The submitter johsin18 proposes the following:
>>>>
>>>> Given a (node|way) with addr:street=theName and a (node|way) with
>>>> place=square, name=theName, the first object should logically be tied
>>>> to the second. Correspondingly, osmi-addresses should recognize this
>>>> and not display it as an error as it is currently the case, e.g. at:
>>>> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&lon=7.59448&lat=47.54290&zoom=18&overlays=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> osmi-addresses currently expects either
>>>> addr:street=* used in combination with highway=*, name=*
>>>> or
>>>> addr:place=* used in combination with place=*, name=*
>>>>
>>>> Both myself and the current maintainer of osmi-addresses (=Nakaner)
>>>> are unsure if this proposed change would be appreciated by the larger
>>>> public or not. We are therefore seeking your opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>> Lukas
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 



More information about the Tagging mailing list