[Tagging] RFC 2 - addr:interval

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Fri Jan 8 07:19:45 UTC 2021


Thanks! And is it correct to say that addr:interpolation is not meant for
single nodes to specify that the housenumber string is to be taken as a
range, but for a way where not every building has a separate address node?

Peter Elderson


Op vr 8 jan. 2021 om 08:02 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org>:

> Nominatim interprets its as a single number (literal), as I understand from
> https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565#issuecomment-272725116
>
> It is used in actual tagging for both, sometimes with addr:interpolation
> on nodes
> to indicate range (what is ignored by at least Nominatim)
>
> Jan 8, 2021, 07:48 by pelderson at gmail.com:
>
> I did some overpass scans in my neighbourhood. Within a 10 Km radius from
> my home leaving out the hyphen and/or spaces would get you many errors.
> I think any range solution should leave the housenumber strings intact.
> Adding special punctuation characters for added functionality should work,
> if it includes an easy escape for situations where reserved character is
> part of the number string.
>
> I still like to know how eg addr:housenumber=10-15 is generally
> interpreted now: single number (literal), range, or a mix of
> interpretations (aka chaos).
>
> Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op vr 8 jan. 2021 om 00:23 schreef Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com>:
>
> On 1/7/2021 2:41 PM, Jmapb wrote:
>
> > Would it also be advantageous to assert that a range-like address is
> > not a range? I'd hope that, knowing that any hyphens found in a
> > housenumber are just for formatting, a geocoder could then index the
> > housenumber without hyphens. This would allow digit-only address
> > searches to work in Queens without requiring the correct hyphen
> > placement. Which would be good because it's not uncommon for
> > Queensians to omit the hyphen in both speech and writing. (This
> > currently works in Apple, Google, Here, and Bing maps, by the way.)
> >
> Been rethinking this and checking over the data. The suggestion (my
> suggestion) that geocoders index a de-hyphenated version of all
> non-range hyphenated addresses does not hold up under scrutiny.
>
> First of all, just looking in Queens, the hyphenated addresses are not
> all in the XX-YY or XXX-YY format. You'll see XX-Y or XXX-Y at start of
> some blocks. It looks like addresses where the post-hyphen portion is
> less than ten were padded with a zero when the addresses were applied to
> an entire imported building way, but not when the addresses were
> imported as a nodes, which was how multiple-address buildings were done.
>
> Eg, 65-1 174th Street https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2552890712
> versus 65-04 174th Street https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/248516462
>
> In this context, indexing 65-04 as 6504 makes sense, indexing 65-1 as
> 651 does not. In fact I think 65-1 and similar are probably errors, but
> that's going to take some more investigation.
>
> Second, scanning through the world beyond Queens, I see that it's not at
> all uncommon to have an address with a hyphenated numeric suffix. It's
> very common in the Netherlands. Here's an example, Utrechtseweg 13-9 in
> Hilvesum: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2878703055
> It's not a range (obviously) but I seriously doubt that it would be
> correct to index it as Utrechtseweg 139 -- especially since Utrechtseweg
> 139 is down here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2878370113
>
> I still feel it's a serious compromise in map usability to require
> correct hyphen placement to search Queens addresses (and apparently
> Apple, Google, Here, and Bing agree) but I don't know how best to crack
> this nut. The addr:interval proposal is a related issue, but it's not a
> complete solution.
>
> Jason
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210108/6e93e865/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list