[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I like this new tag.

I had proposing something like that on my TODO list.

I added it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96211869 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96211869#map=17/50.07743/19.93381&layers=N>
to mark addr:housenumber=1-3 as a single address, not a range
(based on survey that I remember well)

Dec 21, 2020, 19:05 by tagging at openstreetmap.org:

> Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".
>
> This new tag:
>
> - applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
> - "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
> - "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
> - "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
> - "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.
>
> "addr:range=all" is the default  because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.
>
> However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
>
> Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>
> -- 
>
>
> 21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by lonvia at denofr.de:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
>>>
>>> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
>>>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.
>>>
>>
>> I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
>> support it in Nominatim in the past. See
>> https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.
>>
>> The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
>> addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.
>>
>> Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
>> to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
>> you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
>> to the addr:housenumber tag.
>>
>> Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
>> different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
>> building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
>> housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
>> and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.
>>
>> I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
>> But I might be fighting wind mills here.
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20201221/233b1953/attachment.htm>