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

[Sarah Hoffmann]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 07:05:10PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
> 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.

It's better. It would resolve half the issue. addr:housenumber would still
have a double interpretation but it's the smaller of the two issues.

addr:housenumber:range would capture a bit better what the tag means
but it starts to get uncomfortably long.

> "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.

That would only make sense, when you define addr:range as being
applicable to housenumbers with hyphens only. However your definition
above was imo more sensible:
"applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber"

If you look at all nodes and ways with addr:housenumbers 99.999% have
a addr:range=no. So that makes more sense as a default then.

> 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.

My guess would be that the main reason that people started using the
hyphen notation with addr:housenumber is that they wanted something
human readable on the map. And addr:housenumber was already rendered.

With that in mind, I think there is a reasonable way forward even for
a addr:range tag as you suggest and also for a separate
addr:housenumber_range=1-15 like I would prefer. For both it is relatively
easy to support a new agreed on proposal while still using the old
behaviour where the new one is not yet implemented. So the transition would
be:

1. Agree on proposal.
2. Get openstreetmap-carto, Nominatim and others to support new proposal.
3. Tell mappers about proposal.
4. Wait a few years.
5. Drop support for addr:housenumbers with interpolations.

Sarah

> 
> 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
> >
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging