[Tagging] address property vs. housenumber as a feature

Javier Sánchez Portero javiersanp at gmail.com
Fri May 11 13:57:08 UTC 2018

2018-05-11 14:04 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:

> sent from a phone
> > On 11. May 2018, at 14:35, Javier Sánchez Portero <javiersanp at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > similar for the other two streets. With the proposed relation, I would
> create a relation with this tags
> >
> > type=address
> > addr:housenumber=1-25
> > addr:postcode=10018
> > addr:street=West 33rd Street
> I would consider not adding the address tags to the relation because
a) you could have features with several postcodes (imagine entrances on
> different streets)

Then you will have different relations, one per entrance.

> b) addr:housenumber=1-25 is not telling you which housenumbers it contains
> (better would be a list of all housenumbers)

It tells you what you find labelled in the entrance, what you can check on
place. If you have some features with individual housenumbers use the
addresses relation to avoid repeat the common tags and you can form the
(probably incomplete) list of house numbers for that entrance from the
addr:housenumber present in the members. If you only look at the entrance
and see "1-25" you can't know if it refers to 1,3,5,...,25 or 1,2,3,...,25.
In this case, if you don't have features inside that repeat partially or
fully the address you don't need the relation. Put the tags in the entrance
and done.

> c) it is duplicating the addresses with respect to the individual plaques

There is no duplicate. What I want to express is that the common addr:*
tags of the features with that address and the entrance/plaque will be in
the relation and NOT in the members. The members will have the addr:tags
that differs (usually none, in some cases addr:housenumber maybe addr:unit
or addr:door). Refining a bit the example the addr:housenumber=1-25 could
be in the entrance node instead of the address relation (easier for the

> The address should be inherited from the members

This don't resolve the inconsistency problem. See the three different
postalcode values for the number 350 of the 5th Avenue in the query below.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180511/0a7c1c26/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list