steve at asklater.com
Mon Dec 8 23:37:00 GMT 2008
On 8 Dec 2008, at 13:41, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> SteveC wrote:
>> "nodes on a way but not a relation" schema needs to have
>> addr:street=foo on the addressing way ?
> The original idea was to (by default) assume that the street name is
> the "name" tag of the nearest highway (i.e. no addr:* required), and
> that you can optionally set addr:street on the node to make it 100%
I don't mean the node, I mean when you have numbers on a way, it would
seem to make sense to make the way have addr:street rather than all
Either way, I don't think magically figuring out what street some
nodes or ways housenumbers belong to should be left to closeness, it
doesn't off the top of my head strike me as something that's
computationally trivial - lots of edge cases. I figure a relation is
nice, and requiring addr:street is a good lesser option. not purring
addr:street should be discouraged.
> But meanwhile - mostly because it is so easy to do in JOSM - many
> people simply tag the whole shebang (addr:country, addr:town,
> addr:post_code, addr:street, addr:house_number) onto every house
> node. It adds redundancy but that is not necessarily bad - gives the
> OSM inspector a chance to find fishy corners, and makes everything
> really simple for anybody dealing with the data.
>> addr:housename needs to be added, or addr:housenumber needs to be
>> explicit that it can be a name, or made a more generic term to
>> encompass both
> The JOSM presets already supply addr:housename even though (to my
> surprise) the wiki page doesn't list it.
More information about the talk