steve at asklater.com
Tue Dec 9 17:25:46 GMT 2008
On 8 Dec 2008, at 23:51, Jochen Topf wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 03:37:00PM -0800, SteveC wrote:
>> 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
>> seem to make sense to make the way have addr:street rather than all
>> the nodes.
> Are you talking about the addr:interpolation way?
> We specifically
> decided to not put any more information on the addr:interpolation-way,
> because that would mean that every software had to look for the
> addr:*-Tags in the interpolation way *and* on the nodes which makes
> things a bit more complex.
Um ok. So I don't see why the nodes have to have addr:street. I'm
assuming that the way would have addr:street on it, and the nodes
would have the numbers. I don't see that picking the closest ways to
match it as a good solution.
More information about the talk