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

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Mon Dec 28 17:39:38 UTC 2020


On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 6:40 PM Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 and I commented as such on the talk page.  I'd like to see even/odd/all
> get dropped and go with interval=2 (or whatever number >1), with the
> default interval=1 being presumed.
>

Most people searching for an address are searching for an address that
actually exists.  On my street, the numbers usually increment by fours or
sixes simply because they're interpolated over distance.  I don't really
care about that, though. Recording that the west side has the odd numbers
and what the range is would be sufficient.   Nobody's going to be looking
for #2237, and if they do, an address interpolator will simply route them
to the fire plug between #2235 and #2239. I don't think we need to record
that some interpolated address don't correspond to buildings until and
unless we're mapping the buildings themselves - at which point, address
interpolation is no longer needed.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201228/0ff3e318/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list