[Tagging] addresses on buildings

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 7 13:36:55 UTC 2020


On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:07, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

What I meant: we put address tags on objects (e.g. shops, restaurants,
> museums, cinemas, etc.)
>

I put addresses on private houses too.  I think you probably covered them
with your
"etc." but I thought I'd make it clear.

and this is usually (in my area) the address that the feature uses (can
> also be something like housenumber 3-5 or 39;41;43, is often just a single
> number although you could reach the feature sometimes through multiple
> numbers).
>
> I have a couple of cases something like that.  They are rare exceptions.
A terrace of
houses with a communal entrance - I don't know how the building is divided,
so 1-12 on
the whole building.  A large building with 41 dwellings on three levels,
several entrances
but without a closer survey I don't know which entrance leads where, so
1-41 on the
whole building.  In that, very exceptional case, it might be useful to put
addresses on
entrances (except it's possible all entrances interconnect via corridors).
I have no
problem with exceptional tagging to handle exceptional circumstances but I
find it
perverse to use exceptional tagging in the general case just so that
tagging is uniform.

Map is still not complete, but while some houses do have housenumbers,
> others only have entrances with letters (those with internal access) and
> housenumbers on the gates that lead into the block.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/365208412#map=18/41.86367/12.48903
>
> So somebody who lives in a house with a number on the gate but not on the
house
itself never gives his house address?  Claims his house does not have a
number?
Cannot insure his house because he cannot give a number for it?  If the
police go there
to arrest him they have to wait at the gate?

When I moved to my current house, it was a new build and I was the first
tenant.
None of the 8 houses on the development had numbers on them: the landlord
had
not fitted numbers and it was up to the tenants to do so.  Some of my
neighbours
didn't have a number on their house for 5 years.  There was no sign at the
start of
the cul-de-sac saying what house numbers were there, or even the name of the
development.  I didn't start mapping until years all of my neighbours
finally put
numbers on their houses, and yet those houses had addresses all that time
even
if they didn't display them and, had I been mapping back then, I'd have put
addresses
on the buildings.  On the theory of "put the address where the label is,
not where the
building is" I'd have been unable to put any address anywhere because there
were no
numbers displayed anywhere.  Even if there had been a sign at the entrance
to the
cul-de-sac saying what numbers it led to, it would have been unhelpful to
map the
addresses as being where that sign was.

Consider towns (and even villages and hamlets).  In the UK, most of them
have
signs on the most important roads to and/or through them at the outskirts.
"Welcome
to Foo" or "You are now entering Bar" (or, for hamlets, just "Fubar") or
whatever.  We
have had many disputes on how to place a node for a locality (centroid,
cultural centre,
business centre, etc.) but it would be downright perverse to place a
locality node at
every sign on the outskirts of the locality.  Yet this is what some suggest
is the correct
thing to do for houses/buildings.  The sign is not the thing, and the
position of the sign
is not the position of the thing.  We understand that principle for road
junctions and their
associated signage...

Take this example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08513&mlon=-4.65456#map=19/52.08513/-4.65456
It is the remnant of an old farm, the farmhouse and some farm buildings,
where most
of the original farmland was sold for the expansion of the town.  Here is
the start of
its driveway:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08455&mlon=-4.65717#map=19/52.08455/-4.65717
The housename is shown at the entrance to the drive (it may or may not also
be on
the house itself).  Putting the address on the house itself allows it to be
distinguished
from the other buildings and the route to it can be determined by
inspection (on the map
or on the ground).  Putting the address at the start of the driveway
doesn't tell you which
of the buildings is the house.  Putting the address on both is confusing.

Yes, there are always going to be exceptions.  They should be handled in
exceptional ways.  We shouldn't be handling the non-exceptional things in
exceptional ways in order to be consistent with the way we handle the
exceptional things.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200107/40ee843a/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list