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

Peter Neale nealepb at yahoo.co.uk
Tue Jan 26 17:45:37 UTC 2021

Hi Sarah,
Thank you very much for your contribution to the debate.
However, I regret that I am a little confused.
Cases 2 and 4.
I would have thought that Cases 2 and 4 were the most clear cut, because there is an actual second road (Red Lane in Case 2 and Little Lane in Case 4.)  Did you mean to say "Cases 2 and 4 are really examples where..."?
Case 1.   
1 Rose Cottages and 2 Rose Cottages are not really on a separate road, so the use of "addr:street=Rose Cottages" is a bit of an artifice, but then they are also not a terrace.  They are detached from one another, where a terrace is a row of houses (>2 houses in my dictionary, as 2 are "semi-detached") that are joined to one another, with shared walls.  In any case, I cannot find any documentation for "addr:terrace=*" in the wiki and according to Taginfo, it is used only 244 times.  I regret that I am not skilled enough to analyse the existing 3,600 uses of "addr:parentstreet=*" to find out how many instances there are of each of the 4 cases that I have documented.  
I regret that am not (currently) prepared to add "addr:terrace" to this proposal, as none of my 4 cases shows a terrace and including it would take the focus away from "addr:parentstreet".
In defence of my proposal for Case 1, "Rose Cottages" has several attributes of a street.  There is a row of houses, all using "Rose Cottage" in the address, where it follows either a sequential number, or a housename.  
Case 3.  
I included Case 3 to canvass opinion on it.  It was suggested in the Tagging discussion, where someone said, 
"The third major category is tower blocks.  I suspect many mappers have used addr:housename for the name of the tower block itself and addr:housenumber for the number of the dwelling within the block.  Which sort of works, but means addr:housename has a different meaning (it would fail if anyone within the block named their dwelling)."
However, I agree that the suggestion of using "addr:housename" for the name of the block, or building is NOT appropriate to apply to a single apartment within the block.  It would be duplicated on all the apartments and (as the poster said) one of the apartments might have a different "addr:housename". So what else to use?
"addr:building* (addr:building; addr:buildingname; addr:buildingnumber; etc. has just over 350 uses, but I cannot find it documented.  I did find a proposal from 2012 
that included the use of "addr:building" for the name of a block of apartments, but this was in the section "Counter Proposals" and did not specify whether this was to be tagged on the block, or on the apartments within the block.
"adrr:block" is documented at:
...but there is refers to a "city block" (i.e. section of a street between consecutive side streets), so I do not think it can be applicable here.. So, I do not see any existing, "approved" alternative for this case.  As with "addr:terrace", I regret that I am not (currently) prepared to add "addr:building", to this proposal.  
If Case 3 is rejected by others, I will remove it from the proposal.  

>On Tuesday, 26 January 2021, 09:23:58 GMT, Sarah Hoffmann <lonvia at denofr.de> wrote:
 >>On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 04:45:11PM +0000, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
>> 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

>Thanks for writing it up. It proves the point I was making earlier:

>Case 1 and 4 are really examples where you have two streets in the
>address. addr:street + addr:parentstreet sounds about right.

>Case 2 and 3, on the other hand, now have a building name in the
>addr:street tag. This is incompatible with the standing definition>of the key in OSM.
>The UK mailing list had the suggestion to add an additional addr:terrace>for the cases 2 and 3. I really think that is the best way to go here,

>although I would suggest the more generic addr:building.

>So in total we'd end up with four forms of addresses:

>* addr:housenumber + addr:street
>  (classic street address)
>* addr:housenumber + addr:place
>  (address without street)
>* addr:housenumber + addr:street + addr:parentstreet
>  (address with 2 streets)
>* addr:housenumber + addr:building + addr:street
>  (address with housenumbers referring to terraces or buildings)

>Kind regards

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210126/ec3bc668/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list