[Tagging] RFC 2 - addr:interval

ipswichmapper at tutanota.com ipswichmapper at tutanota.com
Thu Jan 7 18:10:26 UTC 2021


No addresses are "invalidated" because addr:interval has no default vlaue. There is no "reinterpritation" until housenumbers are explicitally tagged with addr:interval.

-- 
 

7 Jan 2021, 16:27 by kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com:

> 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.
>>
>
> Amen!
>  
>
>> 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> :
>
>> addr:housenumber=174;176;178;>> 180;182;184;186;188;190
>>
>
>  On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:29 PM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <> tagging at openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Really? 
>>
>>
>
> That's what's being done today. I've mapped a few like > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/491160766>  myself.
>
> -- 
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210107/c197a63d/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list