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

Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner at gmx.at
Sun Jan 17 18:01:10 UTC 2021

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 12:34:40 -0500
Alan Mackie <aamackie at gmail.com> wrote:

> If a house displays a number and the official
> source says something else then OSM should record what's on the ground.

We definitely should not and do not do that - an for good reasons. A
number on a house is not an address and no proof thereof. While it
probably does not happen often for a place to lose its address without
replacement there are numerous cases in my country where the numbering
scheme has changed but where the older numbers took years before coming

> 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.

This does not make any sense to me at all. I have limited my statements
to cases/countries where proper data *is* available. Needless to say
that where this is not the case mapping should use other sources like

> A StreetCompleter would not be able to answer this question
> definitively. They could only say if they can see one or not right
> now.  

Most importantly, you did not answer my question, how would anyone use
that information? If it is that unclear that surveying alone does not
determine if an address is there because you need "deep local
knowledge" then the information if a house number is visible or not
does not help at all.

Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

More information about the Tagging mailing list