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

Mateusz Konieczny 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...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210117/bb8e589e/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list