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

Alan Mackie aamackie at gmail.com
Sun Jan 17 15:41:24 UTC 2021

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 10:14, Tobias Zwick <osm at westnordost.de> wrote:

> 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)
> ...?
> I see 2. as being potentially problematic. In some places addresses are
not always displayed even when they exist, and even the ones on display can
be in poor condition or obscured by foliage temporarily.  A StreetCompleter
would not be able to answer this question definitively. They could only say
if they can see one or not right now.

1. could get tedious very quickly in areas with many separate garages sheds
etc., I presume this is why the address query is normally suppressed until
after building type ID in the first place.

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")
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210117/fa9efcd5/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list