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

Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner at gmx.at
Sat Jan 16 16:58:09 UTC 2021


On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:42:35 +0000
Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >  
> 
> 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
> case.

It is completely possibly that one knows that a building does not have
an address but at the same time not know what kind of building it is.
If there is public address data and good aerials available this
situation arises all the time. I could tag hundreds of noaddress=yes in
Austria without knowing if it is a shed, garage, cabin, barn, ...

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner



More information about the Tagging mailing list