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

[Matija Nalis]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:00:40 -0800, Mark Wagner <mark+osm at carnildo.com> wrote:
> 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.

This sums it up rather well, thanks.  And our problem is that we can't say
from aerial photos if it is "builing=garage" or "building=cowshed" or
"building=farm_auxiliary" or someting else - but whatever it is, it is not
going to be getting any mail from the postman (because it has no address).

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.