[Tagging] RFC 2 - addr:interval
kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Thu Jan 7 16:27:34 UTC 2021
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:38 PM Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> wrote:
> Very well, *I* don't want housenumbers to turn into regexes.
> Nor do I want to positively assert the existence of specific
> intermediate addresses in a range, some or all of which may not exist.
While I don't, either, the consequences are not that great. Asking a
geocoding system for a nonexistent address will be fairly rare to begin
with, and directing the user to the nearest actual address is, in any case,
a reasonable outcome.
> > 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.
> The mapper (in this case, that's jmapb) doesn't know. It may be either.
> It's entirely reasonable, in context, that the official address of the
> entrance in question might be "174-190 23rd Street". Yes, it's
> obviously derived from a range, but using the whole range as the
> housenumber in the official address does happen!
And having housenumbers that are hyphenated and NOT ranges happens too.
Look around https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/40.73343/-73.80230 -
there are a vast number of them. (Note that a number like 166-11 can't
possibly be a range.)
I'm fine with something like addr:housenumber_range. I'm not fine with
simply reinterpreting addr:housenumber and invalidating tens of thousands
of correct mapped addresses.
Le 06.01.21 à 19:47, Jmapb a écrit :
> Can we do better than that with current tags?
6 Jan 2021, 20:02 by marc_marc at mailo.com:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:29 PM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
That's what's being done today. I've mapped a few like
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging