[Tagging] noaddress=yes and (possibly) implicit buildings
voschix at gmail.com
Sat Jan 16 10:20:09 UTC 2021
If I understand this correctly, there is an urgent need to do something in
a specific context.
A general noaddress=yes would need a lot of considerations, as addressing
schemes vary, and the interpretation of what is an address varies, and also
which places are expected to have an address (in the proposal mail above,
there is a reference to buildings where no-one lives as having no address,
I think the best solution would be an ad-hoc tag, with a precise
definition, but that is limited to the after-earthquake emergency in
Croatia. The tagging should be chosen to make that point clear.
If that tag then later turns out to be more generally useful, it can be
Other consideration: maybe HOT has already developed an approach that can
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 10:03, Mark Wagner <mark+osm at carnildo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 16:06:46 +1000
> Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 15:06, Matija Nalis <
> > mnalis-openstreetmaplist at voyager.hr> wrote:
> > >
> > > Correct; I mean no housenumber and no street name and no settlement
> > > name and no postcode.
> > >
> > How do things come to the property then?
> Sometimes, they don't. For example, in extremely rural parts of the
> United States, the mail isn't delivered; instead, you need to go to the
> post office to pick it up.
> Even in less-rural parts, there are places that don't have addresses.
> For example, in Spokane County, something is only required to have an
> address if it's considered "addressable property" (roughly, a habitable
> structure). If I want to send something to the water tank out by
> Palisades Park, I need to identify it in some way other than an address.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging