[OSM-talk] addressing

Dave Stubbs osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Tue Dec 9 12:18:24 GMT 2008

> addr:street=Foo on an addressable element is basically the same thing
> as route=LCN:4 on a way. and i thought it was well understood why
> using this method for routes is A Bad Idea, even if it is easier.

Actually that has far more to do with having bus 37, bus 337, bus 270,
bus 44, bus N44, ncn 4, ncn 5, lcn 37, lcn 3, lcn 5, lcn 25 all
sharing the same way (just a random example, don't try to find it!).
Cramming all of that into one tag would become an exercise in text
parsing, and some of the solutions on offer involved building turing
complete languages into the format. I don't really consider it the
same as addr:street which mainly has issues of integrity and
duplication (with maybe the added bonus of having to find the street
object), neither of which were so much of a problem with routes.

Anyway, the primary reason people weren't using relations (when they
actually existed of course) was that editor support sucked. Hence why
the relation handling in Potlatch came in... it's no accident it's
geared primarily for adding routes.
Before that ncn, rcn, lcn tags were generally the way to go for
bicycle routes. And if you still find it easier then I say go for it.
It's a wiki, someone else'll fix it :-)


More information about the talk mailing list