[Talk-us-massachusetts] Stacked address points from MassGIS

[Yury Yatsynovich]

> So what's the real benefit for importing stacked units at all, in terms
of helping map users?
A lot of addresses (in Boston, I guess, majority) are addresses for
buildings with 2 and more housenumbers -- and all of them are stacked on
top of each other in MassGIS. So if we ignore stacked points then a
substantial share of buildings will remain untagged. It seems better to
have housenumber=93;95 on a building than nothing at all.

I agree with the comment on housenumbers like 93-95 -- probably, they
should be omitted from import, especially that, as a rule, at the same
location are the points with housenumbers "93" and "95".



On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:35 PM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

>
> Yury Yatsynovich <yury.yatsynovich at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Greetings!
> > I have a question on combining stacked MassGIS address points (those with
> > EXACTLY the same coordinates) for importing to OSM.
> >
> > Namely, here is an example of 4 MassGIS addresses in Malden that have
> > exactly the same coordinates:
> > 93 Home Street
> > 95 Home Street
> > 93-95 Home Street
> > 95 Home Street, Unit B
>
> The first question is what's actually right.  Pretty clearly that set is
> not.
>
> > How would you combine them?
> > Aggregate into two separate points (with and without units) which will
> > still be stacked after the import:
> > -- "addr:street=Home Street, addr:housenumber=93;95;93-95"
> > -- "addr:street=Home Street, addr:housenumber=95, addr:unit=B"
>
> Aside from the fact that 93-95 is an address range not an address, and
> probably should be rejected for importing, that seems ok
>
> > Or combine all 4 of them into one point? Yet, here I have a problem of
> > thinking about combining addresses with and without units.
> > Something like
> > "addr:street=Home Street, addr:housenumber=93;95;93-95, addr:unit=B"
> > doesn't seem accurate -- there are addresses in this point without unit
> B...
>
> I am not aware of an established tagging scheme.  It seems not ok in osm
> to make up such things as part of an import.   So you could ask the
> tagging list, and see what's on the wiki, but it seems unlikely that any
> such scheme will be supported by nominatim, osmand, maps,me, mkgmap, or
> other things.  As part of the import proposal we should explain how our
> tag conversion choices lead to good outcomes with most/all of the known
> data consumers.
>
> > On the other hand, something like "addr:street=Home Street,
> > addr:housenumber=93;95;93-95, addr:unit=B;", although, indicating that
> some
> > of these addresses do not have units (can it actually be tagged with an
> > empty string after ";" in addr:unit??), doesn't give a good idea which
> are
> > these addresses.
>
> That seems wrong too.
>
> > Or would you prefer importing stacked points without combing them at all?
> >
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> I actually am unclear on whether we should be importing stacked points
> at all, or whether we should be less aggressive.  I am not clear on the
> value of adding in a separate unit B point when by all accounts nobody
> knows where it is separately.  So it seems like not-quite-right data and
> noise, and anybody looking for 95B that finds 95 knows to go there and
> look, same as if they find 95B in the db.
>
> Plus, anything we don't import can be imported later, but things we wish
> we hadn't (long history of issue in imports) is harder.
>
>
> So what's the real benefit for importing stacked units at all, in terms
> of helping map users?
>


-- 
Yury Yatsynovich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20180911/14210c5a/attachment.html>