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

[Matija Nalis]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 17:58:09 +0100, Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at gmx.at> wrote:
> 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, ...

Exactly this.  We have received authoritative data for addresses from
government branch which gives out addresses.  If they say there is no
address for some building, than it is a known FACT, as there is no way a
building could've gotten the address any other way.

And we have satellite and plane and drone imagery which clearly shows there
is a building at that place [1], and from official database above we know it
has no address.

So we would like to tag them with noaddress=yes.  

When/if the purpose of the building becomes known later, and it is one that
has implied noaddress=yes, then we intend to remove redundant "noaddress=yes"
when changing "building=yes" to (for example) "building=garage".


[1] although aerial imegery show us that there is clearly a building, we
    can't say from them alone even what is "building:use" or "building")

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.