[Tagging] noaddress=yes and (possibly) implicit buildings
pla16021 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 16 15:42:35 UTC 2021
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 05:06, Matija Nalis <
mnalis-openstreetmaplist at voyager.hr> wrote:
> Correct; I mean no housenumber and no street name and no settlement name
> and no postcode.
So you know, FOR A FACT, that it has no address. That is not the same as
not knowing the address.
> So it is simply type of building that does not have and would probably
> 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
> which type of building *exactly* it is.
So you do NOT know, for a fact, that it has no address. You don't even
know what type of building it is (that's not what you said earlier). Maybe
it is a house with an address but you happen not to know what the address
is. Adding noaddress=yes would be exactly the wrong thing to do in this
If you don't know what it is, then noaddress=yes is incorrect. If you
know it's a garage so have mapped it as building=garage or
building=yes then noaddress=yes is superfluous. If you know
it's a house but don't know it's address then noaddress=yes is
The only case I know of where noaddress=yes might be valid is
for things like a group of holiday cottages that are converted
farm buildings. And even though they might not be considered
deliverable for mail (no permanent occupants) delivery services
(particularly in these plague times) need to know where they
are and satnavs often take postcodes for destinations, so
partial addresses may be useful. Also for geocoding where
the user knows the name of the holiday cottage and knows
which town or county it's in. There are a lot of "The Barn"
and "The Dairy" holiday cottages within a 30-mile radius
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging