[Tagging] noaddress=yes and (possibly) implicit buildings
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Sun Jan 17 17:41:36 UTC 2021
Jan 17, 2021, 18:34 by aamackie at gmail.com:
> 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 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.
>> 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.
Personally I ask people living* in a given (or nearby) building before answering as
"definitely no address".
*or working there for shops etc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging