[OSM-talk-be] Newbie : Huis vatten - adressen - UrbIS

[Glenn Plas]

We should stick to the current well known scheme, thinking about this 
renderer issue... it makes no sense to manoevre around a faulty 
renderer, being it nominatim or a tileserver.  If a search for a street 
+ housenumber,  city returns nothing, but a search for that same street, 
city without the number does return fine, who's fault is that?  Search 
engines are suppose to be 'best effort' .  The correct behavior should 
be to drop the housenumber from the search parameters (no exact match is 
found), and then lower the resolution of the result set to encompass the 
street (visually).  In nominatim that would translate to bunch of hits  
when searching for an address, when reverse searching for a coordinate 
that would just return : streetname , postalcode, city, country  no 
housenumber.

That proposal ,I mentioned that in a earlier comment already,  (to be 
aware of it's existance) but it's flawed as you noticed.  Also, there 
are 203 occurences in the whole database like this:

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr%3A1%3Ahousenumber

Safe to say, it would be a lost effort following this scheme.  But also, 
we would be the only ones using it imho ....  We should just keep 
tagging the karlsruhe way.

Glenn

On 2013-10-21 14:40, Marc Gemis wrote:
> And I'm not the only one: see 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses 
>  none of the comments was in favor of this proposal.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com 
> <mailto:marc.gemis at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     2013/10/21 Pierre Parmentier <pierrecparmentier at gmail.com
>     <mailto:pierrecparmentier at gmail.com>>
>
>       # Proposed Features/Multiple addresses
>         <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses>
>
>
>
>     I don't like this proposal too much. This is a relation in
>     disguise. So why not use a real relation instead ? A building
>     relation (which already exists) with multiple address node
>     members.  -- I know it's not your proposal, so I won't shoot the
>     messenger :-)
>     This is a mess to maintain if you have to manually make sure that
>     all numbers behind a addr: are there. I would vote against it.
>
>     m.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20131021/60acb22e/attachment.htm>