[OSM-talk] Property Address info - was Featured images for christmas week

[Karl Newman]

On Dec 22, 2007 2:46 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder)
<blackadderajr at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Karl Newman [mailto:siliconfiend at gmail.com] wrote
> >Sent: 22 December 2007 6:02 AM
> >To: Andy Robinson
> >Cc: David James; talk at openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Featured images for christmas week
> >
> >On Dec 21, 2007 6:43 PM, Andy Robinson <blackadderajr at googlemail.com>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> We thrashed out ideas on th wiki the other day and decided upon the
> >following:
> >>
> >> The buiding areas are tagged with building=residential (or
> >> building=whatever if its something else)
> >>
> >> The nodes are also tagged with buidling=residential and have an
> >> additional ref=# on them for the house number.
> >>
> >> Will document this in Map Features if it looks to work out ok once
> >rendered.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Andy
> >> --
> >> Andy Robinson
> >>
> >
> >Okay, that will work for numbering buildings and showing the number on
> >a map. The argument I'm having on the Wiki is more for house numbering
> >which can be used for address interpolation along a street. GPS
> >devices use this sort of numbering (which is my intended application).
> >
>
> Yes, its something I've noted that the house numbers are often too close to
> more than one street to be sure which street they belong to on a proximity
> basis. If the nodes are always within a building area then that area in the
> majority of cases can be linked to its street through proximity. There are
> however some exceptions, especially buildings which bound more than one
> road. So it would be necessary to add specific information to either the
> building or the node to identify the street in these cases but it should be
> possible to get to the majority of locations without adding a pile of extra
> tags. Beyond that it should be possible to use a proximity basis for all
> other data (town, region etc).
>
> There is also the issue of whether every property number is required. I find
> that when using off-the-shelf navigation products they can generally take me
> to the end of the correct drive. But I find I'm driving so slowly by that
> point I could have worked it out anyway. So do we really need every unique
> address? Probably not. For the vast majority of cases an interpolation
> between the start and end number on a continuous run of property (whether
> odd, even or mixed) should be enough to work out the intermediate properties
> with sufficient accuracy for routing. Oddball properties or properties with
> names alone will be in the database individually anyway.
>
> Of course if the unique postal_code is added to a node or area that gives an
> extra method for location resolution potential.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
>

You might want to take a look at my proposal here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/House_numbers#Third_Suggestion_.28Using_relations.29
Without a topologically-associated solution such as I've proposed, it
will be very difficult to get the numbers associated with the streets
at the correct points for use in navigational devices (and that's a
big reason we're entering street numbers, right?).

Karl (SiliconFiend)