[Tagging] noaddress=yes and (possibly) implicit buildings

Matija Nalis mnalis-openstreetmaplist at voyager.hr
Sat Jan 16 05:02:32 UTC 2021


On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:51:42 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8 Jan 2021, at 17:37, Matija Nalis <mnalis-openstreetmaplist at voyager.hr> wrote:
>> 
>> I'd like community input on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noaddress
>> 
>> Is it reasonable to map "building=yes" polygons with  "noaddress=yes" in
>> cases when the building is known to have no address, but details about its
>> purpose are not known yet (so I know building has no address, but don't yet
>> know if it is because it is service building, or shed, or garage etc).
>
> by no address do you mean no housenumber and not street name and no settlement name and no postcode? 

Correct; I mean no housenumber and no street name and no settlement name and no postcode.

So it is simply type of building that does not have and would probably never
get its own address (like a single garage or a shed); but at the time of
mapping only the fact it does not have address is known; and it is yet unknown
which type of building *exactly* it is.

> Or „not registered for an address“? There is also the nohousenumber=yes tag.

I'm aware of "nohousenumber=yes" tag too; in Croatia it is indicated by "bb"
after the street or settlement name ("bb" is short for "bez broja", which
translates literally as "without number").  

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.




More information about the Tagging mailing list