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

Tobias Zwick osm at westnordost.de
Sun Jan 17 15:11:42 UTC 2021


The discussion has been revolving around earthquakes in Croatia mostly, 
so I have to ask:

Is this still about the proposal to let StreetComplete...

1. ask its users for the housenumber of every building=yes (worldwide)
2. tag noaddress=yes on a building if it has none (cause it is a
    shed or whatnot)
(3. remove noaddress=yes if/when that building is later tagged to be a
    type of building that usually has no address (like a shed or whatnot)
    via the app)

...?

This behavior for Streetcomplete was proposed in
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2464
and this mailing list discussion was created as a response of me saying 
in that ticket that I think such a behavior of the app would be heavily 
critized if implemented.

It's nice to hear that apparently there is not really an opposition to 
that behavior, but I fear that may be the case because in this 
discussion it sounds like this is exclusively about some humanitarian 
mapping in a limited region (and time).

Tobias

On 17/01/2021 05:10, Matija Nalis wrote:
> 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")
> 



More information about the Tagging mailing list