[Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

Clifford Snow clifford at snowandsnow.us
Mon Feb 19 15:36:42 UTC 2018

Just one concern - Removing of addr:city. I encourage people to include
addr:city since it's part of their mailing address and could easily be
outside of the city limits. While addr:city isn't needed inside of city
boundaries since it can be obtained from their spatial location, does make
it much easier to full addresses from OSM. I would recommend not removing

My perspective is from the states where I'm familiar with how the US Postal
service operates. If this isn't true in Canada - please ignore.


On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Matthew Darwin <matthew at mdarwin.ca> wrote:

> I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out there.
> If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and addr:country tags in
> Canada, please speak up.  I don't like making big changes with only 1
> comment.  (If you like, feel free to reply privately to me avoid bombarding
> the list with "me too" and I will summarize the replies on the list).
> Prior to starting this discussion, I too have been removing these tags when
> I come across them (a few places in London, ON had country=US???)
> Alternately my proposal would be to:
>    - change addr:state => addr:province
>    - add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
>    don't exist
>    - an then then to standardize what we are putting into those fields.
>    eg for addr:province in Ontario: ON, on, Ontario, ONTARIO, Ont, ont, or the
>    several other variations that exist today.  ("ON" is most popular, followed
>    by "Ontario")
> If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to hear why
> having the tags in some places but not others is a good thing.  As you may
> have noticed based on my posts over the last few weeks that I like to have
> things (more) consistent, unless there is a (good) reason not to be
> consistent.
> On 2018-02-16 12:52 PM, Alan Richards wrote:
> I typically remove these tags when I come across them, as yes, I've heard
> the same argument that they're redundant.
> I like all this cleanup you've been doing with phone numbers, addresses,
> etc. Kudos!
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Matthew Darwin <matthew at mdarwin.ca>
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in Canada, it was
>> suggested that the addr:city could be removed entirely if the appropriate
>> boundaries are defined.   I would hazard to guess (and will endeavour to
>> investigate) that the addr:city and the boundaries do not always align in
>> Canada (there are ~11300 administrative boundaries of some type and there
>> are ~7000 unique addr:city tags)... so this will be a much more long term
>> effort.
>> However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined, so removing
>> the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state tags might be a more
>> reasonable at this time.  (addr:country is used ~94% less than addr:street)
>> Tags, by number of occurrences:
>>  167902 addr:country
>>   33252 addr:state
>>  179741 addr:province
>> 2950115 addr:city
>> 2942159 addr:street
>> 2934341 addr:housenumber
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20180219/d98614a5/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-ca mailing list