[OSM-talk-be] Renderen van addr:flats

[Marc M.]

if one building have 2 entrance, it's useful to describe with entrance
need to be used to reach this flats number.
but having all flats number on the building or on one-only entrance,
is like "to reach the inside of the building, reach the building".
it's a bit like adding entrance=yes on the building to say that a
building has an entrance somewhere, you don't add any real information.

so at this place, I would not have added any addr:flats which would have
solved the problem of rendering :) I will only use it in the case of a
building with more than one entrance, and so addr:flats on the entrance
does not disturb the display of addr:housenumber for the whole building.

Le 15.06.20 à 13:55, Lionel Giard a écrit :
> The tagging is correct, it is just not supposed to be on area from the
> wiki perspective. But indeed I don't see why it is incorrect when a
> building is only containing this series of flats and only one entrance ?
> And if that's incorrect why are they rendering addr:flats on area and
> not node ?! ^^'
> 
> Le lun. 15 juin 2020 à 13:32, joost schouppe <joost.schouppe at gmail.com
> <mailto:joost.schouppe at gmail.com>> a écrit :
> 
>     Most of this data comes from the GRB import, I would guess. So it
>     comes from CRAB. We use the addr:flats to map the "subaddresses".
>     It seems a little weird to not be able to add the subaddresses on
>     the same object that has the main address.
>     The CRAB import tool mentioned this as an optional tag, that is not
>     so useful for OSM:
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AGIV_CRAB_Import#Optional_tags.2C_provided_by_the_tool
>     I would concur that the quality of the data is not good enough to
>     import it.
>     Both examples come from endless_autumn, who did a rather
>     quick-and-dirty GRB import - a lot of which was reverted.
>     The GRB-import-validator Midgard made actually flags the flats tag
>     as "consider removing" as well.
>     That said, the wiki doesn't say much about the logic of
>     "subaddresses", maybe we shouldn't use the addr:flats tag -at all-
>     for subaddresses?
> 
> 
>     Op ma 15 jun. 2020 om 09:22 schreef Sander Deryckere
>     <sanderd17 at gmail.com <mailto:sanderd17 at gmail.com>>:
> 
>         Hmm,
> 
>         it seems indeed that, according to the wiki, this should not be
>         placed on areas.
>         However, I expect that in all these cases, all flats are
>         accessible behind the same door.
>         So correcting the tag will have the same effect.
> 
>         Op ma 15 jun. 2020 om 09:12 schreef Marc M.
>         <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com <mailto:marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com>>:
> 
>             Hello,
> 
>             Le 15.06.20 à 08:23, Sander Deryckere a écrit :
>             > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.87528/4.69102
> 
>             https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/499694374
>             this look like a mistake :
>             wiki :  marking range of numbers of flats behind a door,
>             but the object isn't a door, it's a building
> 
>             maybe osm.carto should avoid to render tagging mistake and
>             target
>             only node and maybe only with entrance or door tag
> 
>             Regards,
>             Marc