[Talk-us] Address Node Import for San Francisco

Apollinaris Schoell aschoell at gmail.com
Fri Dec 10 01:12:19 GMT 2010

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Gregory Arenius <gregory at arenius.com> wrote:

>  The wiki states that this is how address nodes are done.  They can be
> attached to other objects of course but they can also be independent.  Like
> I stated earlier I did check how they are actually being done elsewhere and
> the ones I've seen entered are done in this manner.
> Also, why do you think of them as noise?  They're useful for geocoding and
> door to door routing.  The routing in particular is something people clamor
> for when its lacking.
individual address nodes are common and there is nothing wrong adding them

> As for attaching them to buildings that doesn't particularly work well in
> many cases especially in San Francisco.  For instance a building might have
> a number of addresses in it.  A large building taking up a whole block could
> have addresses on multiple streets.  Also, we don't have building outlines
> for most of SF and that shouldn't stop us from having useful routing.

setting address to a building is good if there are buildings. but in this
case it makes absolute sense to have individual nodes. in case of multiple
addresses on one building the address nodes can be used as a node in the
building outline to mark the individual entrances on large buildings. but
this is really optional.

>> > Also, there are a large number of places where there are multiple nodes
>> in
>> > one location if there is more than one address at that location.  One
>> > example would be a house broken into five apartments.  Sometimes they
>> keep
>> > one address and use apartment numbers and sometimes each apartment gets
>> its
>> > own house number.  In the latter cases there will be five nodes with
>> > different addr:housenumber fields but identical addr:street and lat/long
>> > coordinates.
>> > Should I keep the individual nodes or should I combine them?
don't combine them if they have different house number. reality is there are
different address so we should map all of them even if the location is the

>> I hear this every time imports come up.  I got it.  Its hard.  Thats why
> I'm soliciting feedback and willing to take my time and am really trying to
> do it correctly.  I'm not willing to just give up because there have been
> problems with imports in the past.

I would say this is one of the easy imports, there is not too much harm it
can create. only problem is to merge it with existing data and make a
decision which one is better. Since this data is probably authoritative it
might be ok to replace most of the less accurate data already in OSM.
For this reason I would drop any of the nodes in case of a conflict but
rename the tags to something else like sf_addrimport_addr:*
a survey on the road can check them later and compare with the existing addr
nodes and decide which one to keep and rename the import tags to the real

> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20101209/d2ecfc07/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list