[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Documenting the Key: addr:parentstreet

[Peter Neale]

I have now (briefly) reviewed the definitions of "relation:street" and "relation:associatedstreet".
I don't pretend to really understand either of them and there seem to be strongly held opinions, both in favour of and against them (particularly "realtion:associatedstreet").  
I would not expect a street to have "an address", but I see that "relation:associatedstreet" is shown to have (optionally) an "addr:suburb" tag.   
So, perhaps:
where either of these relations is used to group together all the elements that are common to a street  
and
where that street is a Dependent Thoroughfare (in Post Office speak), 
it could be appropriate to include an "addr:parentstreet" tag to the relation to specify the major street on which it depends as "child".
If that were the case, the address of a single property could be determined by looking for its "addr:housenumber" tag, taking the "name" of the relation:street as its "addr:street" and the "addr:parentstreet" also from the relation.
...or perhaps I have completely mis-understood?

Regards,Peter

    On Wednesday, 20 January 2021, 17:44:57 GMT, Peter Neale via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:  
 
 Hi Mateusz,
I was seeking to document (the majority of) de facto use.  I have not checked all >3,600 current uses to see whether they are all consistent; perhaps a few are not.
I decided to use a proposal because I was also seeking to explain the rationale behind it.  (...and I had not submitted a proposal before, so it was a new challenge)
>"Relations that group buildings that share a single address." can you specifyrelation type there? 

The only live example I have found uses "relation:site".  You can follow the link in the proposal to the real-world example.  In the proposal, I say, "...the buildings could then be grouped in a site relation".
I will check the other relations that you quote, in case it could be applicable there, but I don't think it will be. 
Regards,Peter

    On Wednesday, 20 January 2021, 16:58:53 GMT, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:  
 
 Is it redefining tag or documenting de facto use?

Because for documenting de facto use it is also fine to simply
create new page anyway - and ask for review (though
proposal is OK).

If it is redefining tag - what is changing compared to 
the current use?

"Relations that group buildings that share a single address." can you specify
relation type there? 

It is not 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet
or
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:street

Jan 20, 2021, 17:45 by tagging at openstreetmap.org:

With some trepidation, I have now moved the proposal to document the key:  "addr:parentstreet" to the RFC stage.

This is my first proposal, so please be understanding.

Please see here:
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Proposal_to_Document_the_Key_%22addr:parentstreet%22

Regards,
Peter



 _______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  _______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210120/1649423d/attachment-0001.htm>