[OSM-talk-be] Streets with two names

[Jo]

As a reply to the very first message (I've been rereading all of them):

I'd prefer to see names with capital letters.

:left and :right are probably the best solution. :forward and
:backward are for different situations, although none come to mind,
right now.

associatedStreet relations are searched by Nominatim

I've only been experimenting with the housenumbering, since I noticed
they started doing it like that in France and Germany as well.

I agree not each of the nodes should have entrance=main. It's a bit of
overkill for private homes. I'm sure somebody who works for a project
trying to help blind people will disagree with this, but I don't think
they are on this list.

Up to now, I've been doing it as described on the wiki. (Except for
the industrieterrein in Heverlee/Haasrode where there is a combination
of house numbers belonging to the street and the buildings and a
separate numbering scheme for the site and the terrains, like seen in
the harbour of Antwerp as well)

entrance=main is in the proposal stage. It makes more sense than
building=entrance, as clearly a node tagged with building=entrance is
not actually a type of a building, but a type of entrance to a
building.

It's true many of them will be imprecise, as I simply selected 3 nodes
and pressed 'b' to space them equally on one line for the ones where
no way was leading to them.

There are advantages to doing it this way though. Shops and other
places which have names will now also display a house number at higher
zoom levels.
For houses which are not freestanding like the ones in Schriek, the
housenumbers will fall in one line, which some people in France seemed
to prefer.

And of course, in JOSM things become clearer as well, but since I
found how to compose the displayed names from several underlying tags,
that's less of an issue now.
Still, with this scheme it's immediately obvious that one is looking
at a house number.

The last 'advantage' is that when converting nodes with a housenumber
on them, to buildings, the history of the node shows that it loses the
housenumber or in some (most) cases the node is even deleted. I tend
to make it part of the building but that is extra work.

With this scheme the advantage is that such nodes can simply become
part of the building outline. History is preserved, which is nice to
have in a project like this.

Anyway, I'll follow where the flock goes. (But I won't change what I
did in Schriek, anytime soon)

Kind regards,

Jo

2011/11/9 Gerard Vanderveken <Ghia at ghia.eu>:
> The associated street relation may also be a good solution to solve the
> is_in problem.
> (But I'm not sure if these relations currently are searched when you use the
> OSM website www.openstreetmap.org - search)
>
> For the house numbers and other address data, these should by preference be
> tied to the building (area) and not to the entrence (node), see Wiki.
> If there is one building with one housenumber, then you should, ideally
>
> draw the building as a polygon with building=* and addr:housenumber=*
> tag one node of the building polygon (or more than one, if the building has
> multiple entrances) as building=entrance
>
> or tag this node as entrance=*
> (Altough I find this entrance mapping, especially for private homes,
> exagerated, as the precision is questionable and there are no ways leading
> to them.)
>
> Regards,
> Gerard.
>
> Jo wrote:
>
> Such a road will also be a member of two associatedStreet relations.
> I've been mapping one like it in Schriek. Near the Schrieksesteenweg.
>
> It starts as Langstraat, then is Langestraat on one side and
> Langstraat on the other. Then it's Langestraat on one side and
> Schrieksesteenweg on the other. To make things worse there are also
> side streets and even 2 houses at the end of one dead end street that
> belong to the other...
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.02218&lon=4.73284&zoom=15&layers=M
>
> During my latest editing session, I put the addr:housenumber tags on a
> node on the outlines of the buildings, as they do in France and in
> Germany, . Is that a good way to do it?
>
> This node also has a tag entrance=main and it is part of the
> associatedStreet relations.
> The building outline closed ways have source=bing2011(;survey) and
> building=house, if they are houses
>
> Jo
>
> 2011/11/8 Gerard Vanderveken <Ghia at ghia.eu>:
>
>
> I agree with not splitting the road.
>
> For the is_in problem, I suggest the same use of left and right.
> is_in:left = LeftTown
> is_in:right = RightTown
>
> I have in my neighbourhood a road on the language border.
> It has depending the side a different french (town of Wallonia) and dutch
> name (town of Flanders) and on top of that a speed limit of 30 in one sense,
> while on the other side,  there is no limit or 70 km/h
>
> Regards,
> Gerard.
>
> Ben Laenen wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 08 November 2011 14:46:00 Sander Deryckere wrote:
>
>
> I'm not in favour of this. Since the road, at least mine in Ypres, is a
> road with just one lane, where you can go where you want. It would be the
> same like splitting buildings because there are more than one shop in it,
> instead of using POI to note the shops in the building. Splitting ways will
> cause weird rendering problems and routing problems. What we need is a
> tagging schema to allow double names. Maybe something like
>
> name=Ieperleestraat-Neerstraat
> name:left=Ieperleestraat
> name:right=Neerstraat
>
>
> This is the method most people agree to and it's used internationally.
>
> Splitting the roads into two ways for each side is a very bad idea.
>
> Greetings
> Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>