[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 136, Issue 178

Peter Neale nealepb at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Jan 17 11:50:07 UTC 2021

Hi Sarah, 

Thanks for your interest in this matter.

I am currently drafting a Proposal Page, seeking views on how to document the use of the existing Key "addr:parentstreet".  I hope that that page will clarify its use and make it easier for future use to be logical and consistent.  Please bear with me while I get my thoughts together... ... and learn how to edit the Wiki (mainly by trial and error)

For now, please see my comments in-line below....
   >------------ Next part --------------->>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 09:13:51 +0000
>From: Sarah Hoffmann <lonvia at denofr.de>
>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>    <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Street and Sub-Street in Address Tagging
>Message-ID: <20210117091351.GA10096 at denofr.de>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 08:39:38AM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 06:23, Sarah Hoffmann <lonvia at denofr.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > The one kind of cases you have presented are essentially buildings that
>> > get their own numbering. Something like:
>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736757638 or
>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5796920749
>> With these examples, Sarah, I'm a bit confused as to where the addresses
>> come from?
>>I was just looking through addresses tagged with addr:parentstreet
>via Overpass to get an idea how it is being used
>>I'm not a local or have much knowledge about British addressing.
>Just going from Colin's explanation I assume:
>addr:street -> dependent thoroughfare
>addr:parentstreet -> thoroughfare

Yes, that is a good explanation of the mapping (sic) between the OSM tags and the RM 

...and I know that we don't have to replicate the PAF in OSM.  In fact the addr:parentstreet key does not do that exactly, but it does cope with a feature of some addresses in a way that can be translated from the RM version.
>> 736757638 shows 1-4 Rose Lane which is fine, but then also says
>> "addr:street Saddler Court"? Would that be the name of the building?
>>So the address here would be: 1-4 Saddler Court, Rose Lane, Diss

Yes.  RM Post Code Finder shows addresses (presumably for the apartments in that building) as 

1 Saddler CourtRose LaneDISSIP22 4RD 
2 Saddler CourtRose LaneDISSIP22 4RD

>>> Same with 5796920749, which says the cafe is at 6 Sanderstead Road, but
>> also says addr:street Station Parade?
>>And here: 6 Station Parade, Sanderstead Road, South Croydon

Well, the RM PostCode Finder shows

Stones Hair Salon6 Station ParadeSanderstead RoadSOUTH CROYDONCR2 0PH

So, there might be an issue about whether there is a Cafe, or a Hair Salon there (and I cannot tell from my armchair), but "6 Station parade, Sanderstead Road"  is a valid address and it fits the geometry at Node#5796920749.  See the hair salon Contact page at:  https://stoneshair.co.uk/contact/

>>From browsing the data, I have the impression that around 4 in 5 uses of
>addr:parentstreet come together with a building or a group of buildings in
>addr:street. That's why I was highly confused about the tag initially. But
>once you figure out that this might be just UK's Royal Mail trying to squeeze
>an address into their existing database scheme, it starts to make sense. At
>least for Royal Mail. As I say, I don't think it's suitable to have a 1:1
>mapping between Royal Mail database fields and OSM tags.

I hope that my proposal will explain the tag and options for its use.  Please be patient.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210117/93a1d073/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list