[Tagging] RFC 2 - addr:interval
marc_marc at mailo.com
Wed Jan 6 22:36:15 UTC 2021
Le 06.01.21 à 21:54, Jmapb a écrit :
> On 1/6/2021 3:02 PM, Marc_marc wrote:
>> Le 06.01.21 à 19:47, Jmapb a écrit :
>>> Can we do better than that with current tags?
> This is less than ideal for a few reasons:
> - It's not exactly the "truth on the ground." (It asserts the
> existence of 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, and 188. We don't really know if
> they exist, we only know where they would fall *if* they exist.)
if you want to fill in exactly what is written, use the tag inscription.
many tag in osm aren't a "character by character" copy from ground
for ex sign with "St. Paul's Road" -> name="Saint-Paul Road"
sign with "built in 2000" -> start_date=2000
> - It no longer matches the literal "174-190", which for all a mapper
> knows, is in fact the form of the address that's actually in use.
if "174-190" is literally used in the real world, then it is not a
range. i thought you were just saying that 174-190 means is not the
literally number but in stead a range of real numbers with or ex a
person will say he lives at #188, not at #174-190.
So please post a coherent example "sign-meaning-issue", not an example
with a meaning that is everything and its opposite (literal or range)
> - It's awkward for a casual mapper to comprehend and maintain.
I don't see the difficulty for an editor to have a preset address with a
"range yes/no" checkbox, even/odd/other increment (exactly the infos of
the proposal), but that saves it in osm without splitting it into
multiple tags (which we know always ends up out of sync, and that's the
maintenance nightmare). PS: addr numbering pluging already do that
for individual object.
> We don't want
it's always tricky to speak on behalf of others, change "we" by "I" :)
> We want them to be what's written on the front of the building.
use inscription :)
I want to have addr:housenumber that tell me the meaning of the sign
like name=* isn't a byte-per-byte copy of the sign.
More information about the Tagging