[Tagging] address property vs. housenumber as a feature

Javier Sánchez Portero javiersanp at gmail.com
Fri May 11 08:40:44 UTC 2018


2018-05-09 22:41 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:

> Is there a way to indicate a housenumber is a feature, vs. a property?
>
> In many places, housenumbers refer to buildings or sites, and you might
> omit addresses on contained features (because you can hope for inheritance
> from the containing address object). Unfortunately the situation in Italy
> is a bit different in this regard, as housenumbers are assigned to
> entrances (either site or building) and even potential entrances.
>
> This leads to the common situation that the same housenumber appears
> multiple times (on the entrance as a feature and on the contained features
> like businesses as an address property). Businesses being accessible
> through different housenumbers is not a rare exception but rather common.
> They deal with it differently: while some list all or a bunch of the
> numbers as their address, others choose one (often but not always the main
> entrance).
>
> If you map the POI as an area, you might often be able to represent the
> numbers that are part of the area (unless they are not on the ground floor,
> or the building is not directly on the street hence the number is typically
> at a gate on the site perimeter). Still most people (including myself)
> don’t map small businesses in shared buildings as areas, so duplicated
> address information is common.
>
> Some of my fellow mappers are dealing with this by adding the poi
> information to the entrance, but this is unsatisfactory because of several
> reasons:
>
> - it can only deal with cases where one number is for one business, it
> doesn’t work for multiple entrances or numbers and it doesn’t work for
> shared entrances (one number for several pois)
>
> - it is topologically wrong (the poi is not on the perimeter, neither
> inside nor outside, it is inside). The poi is also not the same as the
> entrance, if you add entrance=* it is an entrance and should not get other
> tags for a different object (the poi) like name etc.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> sent from a phone
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


In Spain, there isn't a relation one-to-one between entrances and
addresses, but it's pretty common to have a building with more than one
address. They may be a building with access from different streets or a
building (maybe with a housename) and some consecutive numbers (even or
odd) in the same street. For this reason many people (me included) are
mapping addresses as nodes pinpointing the house number plaques found at
street level. Most of the time they are associated to an entrance, but not
always. We put a node in the building footprint (if it's only one) or in
the parcel limit when many buildings share the address and there are a
visible barrier as delimiter. I think that this method reflect best the
reality, gather more information and is best for micromapping.

I don't like the duplication of information, prone to be inconsistent
between the address in the entrance and in the multiple POI's that could be
inside the building or area. May be it would be good to have a relation to
keep in only one place an address and link there the affected elements:
entrances, buildings, POI's and area for this address. This would be
necessary only for some cases like a building with many addresses/POI's.
The simplest use cases would be done as usual. Looking the history of the
associated_street and street relation may be this idea is too controversial
so opinions are appreciated.

Cheers, Javier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180511/02f24f27/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list