angasule at gmail.com
Wed Dec 10 13:49:15 GMT 2008
On Tuesday 09 December 2008 11:37:13 Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
> > sure, editor support isn't 100% yet, but why re-create a poor-man's
> > relations with name-based references, when we already have "proper"
> > relations?
> In my eyes an address is not a relation. It comes close, but a house
> *can* have an address that has nothing to do with the road that passes
In your country, perhaps. In my country, that's EXACTLY what the address is.
The address is the street and distance from the street's starting point, in
> The address "31 So-and-So Street" does not mean that this is the
> 31st house on So-and-So Street, it doesn't even necessarily mean that
> the entrance is via So-and-So Street or that it is in the vicinity of
> 30, 32, or 33...
In my country, which has a very sane and predictable scheme, there is usually
a central square which is the centre of the city, from which the main streets
start, and from these start other streets (depending on terrain and proper
planning it might end up as a perfect grid, cf. La Plata, Argentina). 31
would in fact be before 32 and after 30.
There may be other countries using the same/similar system. I believe the USA
is one? And probably a few other countries in South America. I'm guessing
being 'new' countries helps keeping things sane, we're still not overcome by
> I view an address as an individual attribute of a
> certain property that is often similar to addresses of neighbouring
> properties, but need not be.
Cultural issue, no doubt. One map, two systems. Kidding :D
I do think we need more than one system, and people have to stop imposing
*their* view/system on other countries.
More information about the talk