[Tagging] Street and Sub-Street in Address Tagging

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>
> >> A slightly nerdy explanation of all these data elements can be found
> here: https://ideal-postcodes.co.uk/documentation/paf-data#thoroughfare


> It started well enough, ... But as I read further it completely sapped my
will to live.

Ministry of Silly Walks must have been involved in designing this:







*double_dependant_locality    <string>"When the same thoroughfare name
reoccurs in a Post town, it may not be possible to make it dependant on a
dependant thoroughfare. In this case the thoroughfare is dependant on a
locality. "For example if we want to find 1 Back Lane in Huddersfield we
see that there are three."double_dependant_locality   <string>"Used to
supplement Dependant Locality.""A Double Dependant Locality supplied along
with a Dependant Locality if the Dependant Locality exists twice in the
same locality."*

Fortunately it seems that this is not really needed, since the postcode for
each of these "premises" will be different?

(PS: I actually read the link outloud to my family. We did not lose the
will to live, but we did laugh)

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 8:30 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 15:51, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
> This is why RM say that if you only have room for one street name, use the
>> Dependent Thoroughfare ("Bar Court") as this will be unique within a
>> postcode.
>>
>
> Theoretically the house name/number is unique within a postcode
> and nothing but the house name/number and postcode are needed.
> A little redundancy helps with error detection and correction, though.
>
>
>> There are two sorts of house names: Firstly (particularly in rural
>> settings) where a house does not actually have a number. In these cases the
>> name is managed by the local authority together with Royal Mail and can't
>> be changed at a whim.
>>
>
> According to Royal Mail, it is solely the purview of the local authority
> and any changes must be approved by the local authority.
>
>
>> Secondly there are "vanity names" that people add to a house that has a
>> number. In that case the number must still always be displayed on the
>> property and used as part of the address, and the house name is "optional".
>>
>
> In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.  In
> practise, there is.  I've surveyed houses that display neither name
> nor number.  I've surveyed houses that display only a name but
> are between two numbered houses in a range of numbered houses
> and the number can be inferred (and confirmed by other means).
> And I've encountered houses that may once have had a number in
> the distant past but it is not displayed nor can I find anything to
> say what it might have been, nor can it be inferred (when only
> only one house of three on a dependent thoroughfare has the number
> 2, it's impossible to tell which 1 and 3 were).
>
>
> Because "Foo Towers" is a Dependant Thoroughfare and not part of the house
>> name/number perhaps? Or maybe it is a "Building Name"?
>>
>
> Dependent thoroughfare if it has multiple occupants, building
> name if it has a single occupant.  Probably.
>
>
> We have partial kluges for all three categories, but none work
> well.  A field for dependent thoroughfare would be a full solution
> for all of them (but there are probably weirder examples that not
> even that would fix).
>
>
> Indeed, the suggestion of addr:street mapping to the Dependent
>> Thoroughfare and addr:parentstreet mapping to the Thoroughfare fixes this,
>> and because it is a direct mapping to the address model used by RM in the
>> PAF, it is likely to accommodate the "thoroughfare" part of all official
>> addresses in the UK.
>>
>
> I think I would have preferred addr:sub-street for the dependent
> thoroughfare.  I think it a better fit to how people (I'm using a sample
> size of 1 for "people") think about things.  But maybe a slightly worse
> fit for tower blocks.  But I'm losing the will to live, so parentstreet is
> looking good.
>
>
>> A slightly nerdy explanation of all these data elements can be found
>> here: https://ideal-postcodes.co.uk/documentation/paf-data#thoroughfare
>>
>
> It started well enough, though I noted it didn't explain why a
> thoroughfare might be split into more than one postcode (it seems
> to be because the postcode corresponds to the route a postperson
> uses).  But as I read further it completely sapped my will to live.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210116/ff719afc/attachment.htm>