[Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state
Stewart C. Russell
scruss at gmail.com
Mon Feb 19 18:29:40 UTC 2018
Hi matthew -
> 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.
Speaking up here …
> Alternately my proposal would be to:
> * change addr:state => addr:province
Yes: addr:state is always wrong in Canada, but addr:province might be
problematic for territories and First Nations reservations.
> * add ~2.7 million missing addr:province / addr:country where they
> don't exist
No. Please don't do that. We have boundaries for that, so all you would
be doing is adding redundant rows to the database.
Tags such as addr:country=*, addr:city=* and addr:postcode=* are
often redundant as features inside administrative boundaries
(when mapped) "inherit" their attributes as supported by
software such as Nominatim or Photon.
The size of edit would be an essentially mechanical one, and it would be
up to whoever did it to verify that they were adding correct data. If it
comes down to pulling in the name from the
boundary=administrative;admin_level=4 that contains the point, what is
gained from doing this?
> * an then then to standardize what we are putting into those fields.
> eg for addr:province in Ontario
Yes, if there's an address that can show the need of having an
addr:province tag. The choice of value would be arbitrary: Ontario is
official, ON is a postal convention.
> 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.
An address is defined in many ways: attached to a building way, an
explicit address node, interpolated from nearby addr:interpolation ways,
and possibly others. Should all of these have addr:province &
addr:country? As there are no doubt streets that cross provincial and
even country boundaries, any automated tagging process needs care and
More information about the Talk-ca