[OSM-talk] addressing

Matt Amos zerebubuth at gmail.com
Tue Dec 9 13:10:51 GMT 2008

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> except when it doesn't - e.g: misspelled streets, deleted "in use"
>> streets, etc...
> A little redundancy doesn't hurt - on the contrary, it makes spotting
> mistakes easier.

and prevention is better than a cure. don't spot the mistakes - use
the API's features to help prevent their occurrence.

> And about deleted "in use" streets: If a house has a
> certain address then it has that address, even if the street which used to
> pass by the house is physically removed. There is no automatism in the real
> world that links house addresses to streets, so why should there be in OSM?
> If you remove the road next to a house node with an address, then the
> address will of course remain unchanged until this is done explicitly...
> just like in the real world.

there are two uses for addressing: navigation and geo-location. the
situation you describe would make navigation very difficult, so i
think it does not happen much in the real world.

"oh hais, my house address is so-and-so street, but that doesn't exist
any more. please go via such-and-such road."?

the two tagging methods are essentially the same (i.e: they both link
elements to a way - and not necessarily the closest way) and result,
after parsing, in essentially the same data model. the fundamental
differences are:

1) the relatedStreet cannot refer to streets that do not exist and
will prevent anyone attempting (possibly accidentally) to do this.
2) the addr:street represents address information textually, and
therefore requires searching (which may fail, or may result in
unintended items found) to lookup the street.

i prefer using relations, but clearly both methods have merits. how
hard is it to support both?



More information about the talk mailing list