[Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 31 January 2018 at 11:13, Will Phillips <wp4587 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I favour using addr:parentstreet rather than addr:substreet for the
> following reasons:

+1

> 1. The majority of OSM data users and tools/services using OSM data don't
> know that either addr:substreet or addr:parentstreet exist. They will
> recognise addr:housenumber and addr:street. Therefore I think the most
> important part of the address should use these tags, which is usually the
> dependent street and number. If someone is searching for an address, I think
> this is usually the part they will enter.
>
> 2. When mapping addresses I consider the addr:housenumber and addr:street to
> go together. Otherwise it is ambiguous, because there is no way of knowing
> whether the number relates to the dependent or parent street. This can get
> very confusing because the same numbers will often be used for addresses
> along the main part of the street and again on any subsidiary parts. If we
> wanted to use addr:substreet without any ambiguity, we would need something
> like addr:substreetnumber as well.
>
> 3. Using addr:substreet is just more confusing. New mappers aren't going to
> understand it. If a street has its own name and is separately numbered, it's
> intuitive to put this into the widely recognised addr:housenumber and
> addr:street tags. I know from surveying a lot of addresses that is difficult
> to guess whether Royal Mail considers a street to be dependent or not: such
> streets often don't look any different from other nearby streets that
> aren't. It's not something mappers should have to worry about in the
> majority of cases.
>
> Just to add, I don't think addr:parentstreet it always the best approach.
> Where a 'dependent street' is say a block of flats without a physically
> separate street, using addr:housename and addr:flats is often simpler.


-- 
Robert Whittaker