[Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK
wp4587 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 28 12:19:20 UTC 2019
I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For this I
have usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas and
addr:locality elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to have just
one recommended tag, perhaps addr:locality, because having addr:town
addr:village and addr:suburb seems too complicated. Eventually it would
be good if editing software, in particular iD, could provide an extra
field to enter the locality, and it would perhaps be easier for that to
happen if there was only one tag. New mappers often seem to have
difficulty entering addresses to the form that they wish and I think the
lack of a locality field is part of the reason.
For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using
addr:sublocality is a possibility, although I wonder whether just
sticking with addr:village for this less common situation would be
easier. It depends a bit on whether this tag is only likely to be used
for villages and hamlets, or whether it might be useful in other cases.
For example, sometimes names of industrial estates appear in addresses
in a similar way to sublocalities.
I only use addr:city for post towns, although I recognise not all
mappers agree with this, and I appreciate there are arguments both ways.
I was thinking about this recently when adding addresses in Lees near
Derby. The post town is Ashbourne, but this seems slightly incongruous
because the village is much nearer to Derby. I chose not to include
addr:city and only used addr:locality for the village name.
I feel the main argument in favour of using post towns for addr:city is
that it helps to keep the data consistent because what to use often
becomes confusing otherwise. To use the example of Lees I mentioned
above, it would be easy to end up with a situation where addr:city
contained perhaps four values if the data was entered by different
people without any guide as to what to use (the most likely
possibilities being Lees, Dalby Lees, Derby or Ashbourne).
In cases where local residents consider Royal Mail's choice of post town
to be contentious, usually because it is miles from where they live, it
might be sensible to recognise addr:posttown as an alternative.
On 27/01/2019 20:40, Andrzej wrote:
> When working on post codes in East Anglia I realised the current
> address tagging scheme is insufficient for even fairly basic
> scenarios. I have already discussed the issues with some of the most
> experienced mappers and like to bring these issues to your attention.
> Robert has summarised his ideas in
> The bottom line is, I would like to be tag commonly used addresses
> without losing information and without resorting to addr:full.
> 1. Post towns (most pressing one because there is a lot of confusion
> around it). The UK is fairly unique in that not every town is a post
> town. This makes it impossible to tag e.g. Station Road, Histon,
> Cambridge CB24 9LF.
> Wiki recommends addr:city to be used for tagging post towns
> (Cambridge) but then how do we tag Histon?
> - Robert recommends sticking to the current meaning of addr:city and
> using addr:town and addr:village for town and village names, which,
> although not in wiki, are already being used in the UK. I like this
> solution because it is very explicit in what each addr: key means and
> it doesn't redefine addr:city.
> - SK53 prefers using addr:city for everything (towns, even villages)
> and either not tagging post towns (they can be seen as a an internal
> detail of a closed Royal Mail database) or using a new tag for it,
> like addr:post_town. It is a simple solution, results in Histon being
> called Histon and not Cambridge (without introducing new tags for town
> and village names) and is commonly used. It is also a bit confusing
> (what exactly is a city?) and I think we we should at least support
> tagging post towns.
> Key questions:
> a) addr:city for post towns or towns and villages?
> b) how to rag remaining information (respectively, towns and villages
> or post towns,)
> 2. Tagging addresses within campuses, business parks etc. There is
> addr:place but it is supposed to be used instead of addr:street.
> Again, Robert has a fairly decent proposal for that using addr:place
> or addr:locality and addr:parentstreet. Please comment.
> 2a. should buildings in campuses be tagged with
> addr:buildingnumber/name or addr:unit? I would prefer
> buildingname/number (as they are often subdivided) but these seem to
> be associated with addr:street.
> 3. Similar to (2) but for buildings. Tagging buildings that have e.g.
> a single name but multiple house numbers?
> Best regards,
More information about the Talk-GB