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

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Sun Jan 17 18:07:17 UTC 2021


Jan 17, 2021, 19:01 by stefan.tauner at gmx.at:

> 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.
>
Entry in the official database is also not an address and not definitive proof of it.

And at least in Poland house displaying number is generally sufficient 
proof to consider it as an address.

Similarly entry in the official database.

Fun begins when this two conflict.

>  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
> off.
>
If it is happening often, then situation may be different.

> Most importantly, you did not answer my question, how would anyone use
> that information?
>
For example, to skip surveying such object (StreetComplete itself
can use it to do not ask everyone on the loop if something is not
signed), similarly to noname=yes on things expected to be named. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210117/f2726f51/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list