[OSM-talk-be] Address evolution in Belgium

[Glenn Plas]

I usually start by mapping the houses first, without addresses for a big
area.  I always map everything I see when I do 1 street, even if I don't
do the addresses right away, that is really the best way to reach
completion quickly, to map on the side while addressing 1 street.
Sometimes weeks go by before I get to addresses the buildings and map
further buildings.


An inner city is much easier than large villages...I rather map a dense
area, than the villages I completed so far. A city is bigger bang for
the euro.   Less mouse movement.  Better overview.  But the houses have
strange shapes sometimes compared to houses elsewhere.

Things I pay attention to:

- existing address relations: I delete those of streets I completed.
With pain in the heart as lots of it is Marc's (Escada) work.   But it
is due to time since he entered those often wrong, incomplete usually
both.  The validator will also show an error if you addressed a building
and it also exists in an associated street relation.  I just make sure I
make it complete and correct with common sense.

So the relation count goes down, my respect for Escada goes up.  That
brings me to the second point:

- Erfgoed / historic etc.  A lot of those are from his hand, I merge
that data into the building.
Sometimes it's offset with a house or the housenumbers don't really
match with the data of erfgoed vlaanderen.  But sometimes 1 erfgoed = 2
addresses too!  So I merge the official address data on the building or
create a relation if more than 1.  The relation thing is only a few here
and there.  But I make sure that is in there.

- amenities/shops/resto/cafe etc.  If those nodes have address data, I
doublecheck with their websites and I move the address data to the
building.  If they own their own house number I create entrances with
their own number.   But the building is the main 'owner' of an address,
that's how I see it.

- I remove obsolete address:country address:city when I see them.

- And I only really do areas I know very well.

- The sat pics sometimes lie to you.  Making you think a house is taken
down when it's being built and vice versa.

- The quality of the numbers in the areas I do is quite good, this seems
to matter depending on who's in charge for this locally I believe.

- Sometimes you get nasty house numbers like 167O , 167K , 169S , they
seem to have been interpolated at the source.   I actually ignore those.

- Always put bis numbers in capitals:  45A , 45B

- Check the existing housenumbers too.  I don't select the missing only
in Sanders tool, I select all numbers directly and verify what is there
already.

- Street Corners in Belgium are lovely, all wicked addressing stuff
going on there.  Gives you a sense of how old this place is and how it
became so complicated at times.

So mapping buildings is really just a stage in getting to mapping addresses.

Glenn


On 06-02-15 20:28, André Pirard wrote:
> On 2015-02-06 15:33, Sander Deryckere wrote :
>> Hi,
>>
>> maybe some of you have seen it already, but I graphed some of the
>> address evolution in Belgium:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Sanderd17/diary/34332
>>
>> It's strange how different provinces differ that much, and the Urbis
>> import is also very clear of course.
> Wouldn't it be interesting to have statistics of the proportion of
> mapped houses that have an address.
> Not mapping a house is one problem.  Not setting an address on a mapped
> house is another.
> 
> André.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


-- 
"Everything is going to be 200 OK."