[Talk-dk] Buildings and addressmarkers

Rasmus Vendelboe r.vendelboe+osm at gmail.com
Man Dec 6 17:13:14 GMT 2010

Hi Thies,

I don't think we've discussed that in our mailing list, but I would without
doubt say: (1) leave them as they are. Even if you think about putting extra
data into the points, it's probably better to create a duplet (only with
necessary address data) and put extra info in there as this minimized manual
labour for future update to the address data. I would strongly recommend not
to use method (2) as the address data that was/is imported are
administrative addresses and thus really belong to the estate (the soil) and
not the building (but danish law requires the address data to be placed at
the main building of the property [*])!. Also updateability premise applies
again. I really also don't like method (3) as that surely will produce a
dataset that's just about impossible to maintain for others than you and a
select few osm-gods.

[*] Which is nice, because data is very precise and that can be used to see
if aerial images are aligned well.

Rasmus Vendelboe

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Thies Pierdola <thpierdola-pub at yahoo.de>wrote:

> Hi Danmark,
> with the new Bing dataset released, I started drawing buildings.
> One simple question came up, what do I do with kms/address markers?
> 1) Leave them as they are?
> 2) Transfer the data to the new buildings and remove the markers?
> 3) Put them in some kind of relation?
> I hope there is some kind of convention about this. For now I leave them as
> they are and just draw buildings, as i don't want to mess up the address
> data.
> - Thies
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-dk mailing list
> Talk-dk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-dk/attachments/20101206/8ce9cf97/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-dk mailing list