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

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sun Jan 17 19:40:28 UTC 2021



sent from a phone

> On 17 Jan 2021, at 19:03, Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at gmx.at> wrote:
> 
> 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
> off.


I would map both numbers, and use different tags depending on the situation. When the old number is still visible (also when stroked through) you can use old_addr:housenumber
when the official number is not visible (or a different one is), you could use official_addr:housenumber. I agree with Alan that the number on the ground should go in addr:housenumber 

Cheers Martin 


More information about the Tagging mailing list