[OSM-np] Tagging address on nodes or on buildings

[Prabhas Pokharel]

Hi Amrit, in terms of tagging the address, particularly the housenumber, we
should go with the convention of tagging the buildings, as the existing
convention in OSM suggests, and since we don't have problems of (1) in
Nepal.

Where there is a compound with multiple buildings, and those buildings have
different house numbers, which I don't think is very common, we should add
extra nodes for the extra buildings.

Does that sound like a fair proposal?


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:12 AM, amrit karmacharya <amrit.im at gmail.com>wrote:

> this is an interesting reading about tagging address
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/20261.
>
> The Question is whether we should tag addresses on building ways or as a
> separate node. In case of Nepal, addressing has not been on light. Now as
> KathmanduLivingLabs <http://kathmandulivinglabs.org> is collecting house
> information which also includes housenumber, We should have a discussion on
> how to put  this information on osm.
> We are agree on the tags i.e. addr:housenumber. We should agree on the
> node or way (or relation ) representation.
>
> Some cases we have to consider
>
> 1) A building has more than one housenumber ( not usually in Nepal)
> 2) address Tagging for shops and  offices inside a building  ( should each
> feature be tagged separately)
> 3) Tagging a compound with multiple buildings
>
> housenumbers are going to be used in geocoding, routing and map rendering.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-np mailing list
> Talk-np at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-np
>
>


-- 
Prabhas Pokharel
http://prabhasp.com
US mobile: +1 347 948 7654
twitter/skype/facebook/whatever: prabhasp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-np/attachments/20131120/e9ea290d/attachment.html>