[Tagging] noaddress=yes and (possibly) implicit buildings
aamackie at gmail.com
Sun Jan 17 17:34:40 UTC 2021
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 11:11, Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:41:24 -0500
> Alan Mackie <aamackie at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2. tag noaddress=yes on a building if it has none (cause it is a
> > > shed or whatnot)
> > >
> > 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
> > be in poor condition or obscured by foliage temporarily. A
> > would not be able to answer this question definitively. They could only
> > if they can see one or not right now.
> And then what? This information does not really help, does it? Either
> SC users are trusted to decide if there is an address like other
> mappers or they shouldn't be asked at all.
I think the existing StreetComplete option to mute the prompt is about as
far as StreetComplete should go. Unless determined from building type I
would not consider noaddress=yes to be surveyable, it's a tag that must
come from deep local knowledge.
I'd tend to not ask them unless the country is whitelisted because
> other sources are not available. I think in most countries there are
> more important questions to check at locations than addresses.
I do not think an OSM based app should defer to "other" sources as much as
this statement suggests. If a house displays a number and the official
source says something else then OSM should record what's on the ground. We
should not need to consult a list of governments that admit they're not up
to date or not willing to release information before deciding whether to
record what's there.
> Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging