[OSM-talk] House numbers... One more suggestion
siliconfiend at gmail.com
Tue Jul 29 18:16:33 BST 2008
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <
ajrlists at googlemail.com> wrote:
> The reason I don't like ideas like this is that the data you are adding to
> the way (or as Frederik pointed out possibly also the intersections) is not
> actually anything to do with the physical feature. There are no house
> numbers or other references on a road, only the name of the street and
> perhaps a road reference number. Accepted it's a nice easy way to make
> routing work more easily but that doesn't make it right for our dataset. If
> we keep and maintain the simple ideal that what we map is what we see then
> it keeps it all very simple. Routing algorithms may need to be more complex
> as a result but that doesn't give us an excuse to corrupt our data with
> misleading information.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with tagging the actual location of the
house or building. I think it's unnecessary, but the problem I have with the
scheme is that it doesn't definitively link the node with the way (what's a
house number without an associated street?) My suggestion (the third on that
page, and the first using relations) was to have a relation that marked one
node with left and/or right addresses at that point in a particular street.
Having only a single value instead of a range makes it more resistant to
breakage if the way is split or merged or if nodes are changed. It's
reasonably easy for mappers, too, because it's only one point and number to
mark, and if more detail is desired later, more nodes, numbers and relations
can be added in between existing points.
Andy, you say "it's a nice easy way to make routing work more easily but
that doesn't make it right for our dataset". What is the purpose for adding
house numbers, then? I hope it's for more than drawing numbers on the map,
which really has limited usefulness (numbers at intersections might be
helpful, and would be less clutter on a map).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk