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

Andrzej ndrw6 at redhazel.co.uk
Mon Jan 28 17:32:22 UTC 2019


Hi Will,

These are very good examples, I wasn't aware of such places. They would indeed best fit addr:locality. How about using addr:locality together with addr:town/suburb/village/hamlet then? Having multiple well defined tags is good - they add useful information. We are not designing an internal PAF database for RM - OSM is supposed to be used for many different purposes, some of which we can't even predict. From this point of view, the richer and the more precise the language the better. 

I want to clarify what I meant by "almost offensive". We are asking people to tag their towns with names of towns they don't relate to, and to add insult to injury we want them to tag their own towns as "localities". At best people will ignore this scheme, at worst they will get very upset. In my discussions about this topic people felt very strongly about their home towns. 

Best regards, 
Andrzej 



On 29 January 2019 00:08:11 GMT+08:00, Will Phillips <wp4587 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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. 
>To me 'locality' just sounds neutral. I don't particularly object to 
>addr:town and addr:village, but it does mean we end up with at least 
>three tags rather than one, because in cities suburbs often don't fit 
>easily into those tags, hence the use of addr:suburb.
>
>> Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names
>are 
>> written before street names, not after them.
>In my experience this often isn't true, perhaps look at more examples. 
>It is relatively common for business park and industrial estate names
>to 
>appear after street names.
>
>Examples:
>Lenton Lane Industrial Estate, Nottingham
>http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16&lon=-1.17632&lat=52.93295&bgl=OSM,1,15&s=%22Lenton%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22&st=SearchOpendataJson&uc=1
>
>Trent Lane Industrial Estate, Castle Donington
>http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16&lon=-1.34152&lat=52.85018&bgl=OSM,1,15&s=%22Trent%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22&st=SearchOpendataJson&uc=1
>
>Sherwood [Business] Park, Annesley,
>http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16&lon=-1.25353&lat=53.07037&bgl=OSM,1,15&s=%22Sherwood%20Park%22&st=SearchOpendataJson&uc=1
>
>Regards,
>Will
>
>
>
>On 28/01/2019 15:06, Andrzej wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20190129/5c1cab24/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list