[OSM-talk] House numbers... One more suggestion

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrlists at googlemail.com
Tue Jul 29 19:02:15 BST 2008

Karl Newman wrote:
>Sent: 29 July 2008 6:48 PM
>To: Jochen Topf
>Cc: talk
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] House numbers... One more suggestion
>On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Jochen Topf <jochen at remote.org> wrote:
>	On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:16:33AM -0700, Karl Newman wrote:
>	> 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
>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
>	Thats why you should not only tag the building/node with the house
>	number, but with the full address. Yes, there is some duplication of
>	data, but its still easier than relations and doesn't break as easy.
>	Jochen
>I'm okay with data duplication. Could we do both, then--the Karlsruhe
>schema where actual locations are tagged with full address, and a relation
>to topologically link the house number with the closest node in the way?

I really don't think you should link to nodes in the way, they get moved
around all the time. By all means link with a relation to the way but
linking to nodes is asking for trouble.



More information about the talk mailing list