[OSM-talk-be] Addresses in Belgium

[Jan-willem De Bleser]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
> The associatedStreet relation has the streetname in 'name', not in
> addr:street. I also found some relations where this was done incorrectly.
>
> It is possible to fix all of them in one go. Advise me if you want me to do
> so.

Do you mean fix associatedStreet relations tagged with addr:street, or
fix buildings tagged with addr:street who are also in an
associatedStreet relation? If the latter, I would not do this
automatically, as any tags that disagree probably need a human to
check them.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Ivo De Broeck <ivo.debroeck at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't agree with that. Its necessary to have addr:street for every
> address. When you use potlatch on the computer or iLOE on your smartphone
> its easy to bring in new data or correct the data. The associated street is
> redundant (and as i saw in Bierbeek often wrong).
>
> For me it is most important that new users have the possibility of introduce
> new data in a simple way (copy-paste the streetname in addr:street). Its a
> pity that most of the people here give only sophisticated solutions for very
> simple problems.

Unfortunately, simple solutions often only solve some of the problems.
associatedStreet is more complex than addr:street, but it makes clear
precisely to which street a building belongs. Otherwise, if you need
the street that belongs to that building, you have to search for the
geographically closest way with the same name, a much slower, more
time-consuming and not necessarily accurate operation.

I don't object to either being used at this time, however. I add
associatedStreet relations when there is *no* address information but
I don't convert addr:street addresses to new relations. I do fix it,
one way or the other, when I see them used simultaneously on the same
building, because that is indeed redundant.

Cheers,
Jw