[Talk-it-southtyrol] Import numeri civici in OSM dal DB della Provincia di Bolzano

[Alexander Roalter]

Am 06.11.2013 14:09, schrieb Martin Raifer:
> I'm answering in English, if you don't mind.
>
> I guess you already know it, but just in case: Please make sure to read
> and respect OSM's Import Guidelines [1].
>
> As you have already done some work, it would now make sense to create a
> wiki-page for the import. I made one for the previous opengisdata.eu/TOL
> house-numbers import attempt here: [2]. You can either extend that page or
> (probably better) create a new one to make it clear that this is a new
> attempt.
>
> -- Import Schedule --
>
> I like the idea of a „pilot town“. It doesn't really matter which one
> exactly, but it probably should cover all the corner cases we have to
> consider, which probably don't exist all in one single place. So, I'd
> propose to have a few pilot towns, for example one larger town with
> pre-existing house-numbers, one smallish municipality which doesn't use
> street names for addressing (like Martell or Rodeneck, but those are
> already well mapped) and one Ladin town.
>
> Can you explain what your flow-chart[3] actually means? I don't get it.
> What does the „Community sais YES/NO“ mean? Is this comparable to how
> OSMLY[4] does imports?
>
> -- Tagging --
>
> Addressing in OSM isn't always very straight-forward (especially not in a
> multilingual region), so here are my ideas:
>
> Relation-based addresses are preferred by some mappers (even I mapped my
> first few house-numbers that way), but it has also it's downsides (harder
> to comprehend by new mappers, less support in OSM software, …) and it
> would certainly complicate the import. Other address imports (like the one
> in Denmark [5]) also only used simple nodes.
>
> * addr:country
> Can be omitted, but doesn't harm to include either.
> * addr:city
> Could in principle also be omitted, but again, it doesn't harm to have it
> and in some corner cases it could even be necessary to have it (like a
> house very close to an administrative border).
> * addr:postcode
> I would include it, because postcodes actually can be different within
> Municipalities in South Tyrol (e.g. Eppan has 39057 and 39050) and the
I wasn’t aware of that. If so, putting it in the addr:postcode instead 
of the municipality makes sense.


> borders of postcode areas may not be the very same as administrative
> boundaries.
> * addr:place
> I think you are misinterpreting this tag. It is not used to set the
> "frazione" of an address like "St.Pauls" in "Schulweg 1, St. Pauls, Eppan,
> 39050". For this there is addr:hamlet (see below). addr:place is used in
> the following case: A small village has only a few unnamed roads and all
> addresses are based on the locality: "Gand 45, Martell, 39020". Here
> "Gand" is not a street-name, but a hamlet. In such cases, we use
> addr:place _instead_ of addr:street. See an example [6].
> * addr:hamlet
> If an address is street-based, one can also provide the "frazione" of the
> respective house by using this tag. As far as I know it is not required
> for physical mailing, but it would be nice to have this information, if
> available, to make searching more accurate (e.g. a user may only search
> for "Schulweg 1, St. Pauls" instead of "Schulweg 1, Eppan").
> * addr:street
> See above
> * addr:housenumber
> Surely needed
> * addr:full
> I would not import this field, as this is only intended to be used
> _instead_ of all the fields mentioned above. As described in the wiki:
> “Use this for a full-text, often multi-line, address if you find the
> structured address fields unsuitable for denoting the address of this
> particular location. Examples: "Fifth house on the left after the village
> oak, Smalltown, Smallcountry"”

So addr:hamlet would take over from addr:place as previously mentioned. 
Except where there are no street names (where addr:place is used)?


-- 
cheers,
Alex

-- 
cheers,
Alex