[Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

Is it possible to use addr:locality for both towns and villages? That could simplify things quite a bit and I have yet to see an address that needs a post town and two levels of localities below.

Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but locality sounds almost offensive. 

Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names are written before street names, not after them. They're IMO what RM calls "dependent thoroughfares". For these I would simply use addr:place, which can already be combined with addr:housename and addr:housenumber. Alternatively we could make a new tag like addr:campus.

Best regards, 
Andrzej 


On 28 January 2019 20:36:24 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Hi Will, 
>
>On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 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 don't see any advantage in "addr:village" and "addr:suburb" just
>because they sound familiar or are existing tags. What we are
>discussing
>here is a UK-specific solution. The (Double) Dependent Localities may
>or
>may not correspond to what people perceive as a "village" or "suburb".
>In the quoted example, "Cambridge Science Park" is IMHO neither. 
>
>> 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.
>
>The accepted paradigm is that the address should represent the postal
>address, and not any administrative relationships. As you will know RM
>have their own particular ideas of the geography of the UK, all done
>for
>their own convenience. It would certainly avoid some confusion if we
>used addr:posttown instead of addr:city.
>
>Regards, 
>Colin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20190128/21f73182/attachment.html>