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

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 10:14, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> maybe we should add an expression marker, like {10..20} to make it more
> explicit and avoid confusion with typos?
>

In programming, you also have the ability to define the increment,
which defaults to 1 if left unspecified.  That way you can distinguish
between 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 10, 12, 14, 16 (or even
10, 13, 16).  You could argue that for addresses the increment
ought to default to 2, since that is most commonly encountered.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201224/eac427ec/attachment.htm>