[Talk-GB] Non-intuitive addresses

[Tom Crocker]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022, 13:00 Mark Goodge, <mark at good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/02/2022 12:17, Tom Crocker wrote:
> >
> > For the addresses I would suggest addr:place=Abbots Walk as that
> > *should* work with existing tools.
>
> That seems reasonable, although addr:place seems a little controversial
> in these parts at the moment :-)
>

Well indeed. I figured I didn't need to say that other opinions were
available!


> > For the label, what I usually do is split out the section of
> > landuse=* and add the name to that, which seems reasonable and works
> > for most renderers (I use the cadastral parcels/fence lines for the
> > area).
>
> That's pretty much what I'd planned to do, so it's handy to have that
> confirmed as having been used elsewhere.
>

I got the idea from discussions on nominatim's issue tracker. Here's some
examples:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/991632705
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1011275704
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833172649#map=16/53.8799/-1.7196
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1020679508


> > I have however been thinking about proposing place=building_complex
> > (or something) for these sort of situations. This would be
> > particularly useful when the landuse is mixed, and is a perhaps more
> > appropriate tag. It would fit between city_block and plot in our
> > current hierarchy.
>
> Yes, that seems like a sensible suggestion. it would be particularly
> useful where an urban building has both commercial and residential use.
>

Great. I'd better think about getting it moving then.

Tom

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220212/03d1fa48/attachment.htm>