[Talk-GB] Non-intuitive addresses

[Colin Smale]

> On 02/12/2022 5:44 PM Mark Goodge <mark at good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>  
> On 12/02/2022 14:40, Colin Smale wrote:
> 
> > Don't forget there is reasonably broad agreement that OSM uses *postal 
> > addresses* in cases where they conflict with addresses to locate or 
> > identify a premises. When addressing a letter to Abbots Walk, Royal Mail 
> > say you can omit the main street name if you are pushed for space.
> 
> In this particular case, Abbots Walk is not a substreet or, in Royal 
> Mail terms, a dependent thoroughfare. It *is* the street name (or, in RM 
> terms, thoroughfare) in the address, despite the fact that the houses 
> actually face onto a street with a different name.
> 
The postal addresses of these premises (1-4 Abbots Walk, and 1-2 Ferry Cottages, Abbots Walk) are pretty clear to me as they are to RM. Other types of address label these properties differently, but if we stick to the paradigm that "addr:* is for *postal* addresses, why the discussion? Or are we making life difficult by creating exceptions and special cases?

Maybe we need to assign room in the tagging schema for non-postal addresses, such as "addr:physical:*", "addr:cadastral:*" or "addr:administrative:*", especially for where they conflict with the postal addresses.