Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Tom Hughes]

Companies House don't validate anything. That much is well known.

What Richard was saying was that if you use their web form to
submit then it autocompletes using PAF but most older entries
will have been submitted on paper with no such normalisation.

Tom

On 29/01/2019 00:00, Will Phillips wrote:

Sorry for misquoting! I've got no idea how I managed to do that.

Regarding Registered Companies data, there's a great deal of variation 
in the formatting of the addresses included, as well as plenty of 
misspellings, so my impression is most of the addresses are unvalidated. 
I suspect validation has started quite recently.


I take on board that there are strong feelings regarding post towns. I 
slightly regret mentioning it now, because I considered the more 
important point of my original message to be the need for an agreed tag 
for adding localities. Some mappers do seem to want to add both locality 
and city details and it would be good to have a more agreed way to do 
this, which doesn't use addr:place.


Cheers,
Will


On 28/01/2019 22:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you've done with the quoting but you've 
attributed me

as writing your reply, which evidently I didn't. :)

Will Phillips wrote:

I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a
guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be becoming
less important, but when most people are asked for their address, they
will give their address as defined by Royal Mail.

Looking at the Companies House Registered Companies data for
Charlbury, I find 235 addresses of which 170 include Chipping Norton.
I find Registered Companies data useful because the addresses appear
unvalidated and therefore show addresses as people actually enter them.

No-one in Charlbury describes themselves as living in Chipping Norton.
Honestly, no-one. It's a separate town.

Companies House data for my company shows a registered address of 11 
Market

Street, Charlbury, Chipping Norton. That is not because I think I live in
Chipping Norton. That is because, when you register a company, the 
Companies

House autocomplete thing takes your postcode and fills in the Royal Mail
post-town and other details from PAF.

(TBH, I'm not entirely convinced post towns help Royal Mail in any case,
given the amount of mail mistakenly delivered to us that is actually 
meant

for Mr G--- at 11 Market Street, Chipping Norton...)

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Will Phillips]

Hi Paul,

Once you get out into rural areas, it's sometimes the case that an 
entire hamlet is covered by a one or two postcodes. There may be named 
streets but according to RM/PAF these are ignored and such addresses 
take the form: building name/number, locality, post town, postcode. 
The more natural fit, following the structure prompted in the iD 
editor, for example, would be building name/number, street, locality*, 
postcode.
I've encountered this situation where RM addresses for a village don't 
include the street names, even though the streets have signed names.  My 
view is do include the street names. I've no idea why they are left out, 
because finding addresses in a village where the houses have names 
rather than numbers can be difficult, even when the street is known.


I wouldn't worry about the validator as long as you are reasonably sure 
the data you have added is accurate. These validation tools are very 
useful, but they are only intended to suggest things that might be 
wrong.  Mappers sometimes fall into the trap of tagging for the validator.


Even in villages with established streets and house numbers, there 
will be outlying properties where the street names will be foregone: 
S36 7GG is an example of this.
For outlying properties, I don't think there is any harm in including 
addr:street, regardless of official practice, assuming there is a 
logical street to use. Sometimes remote properties are grouped by a 
sub-locality name, in which case I would use addr:place.


Additionally, it's not clear whether name or addr:housename (or both) 
should be used when mapping anything from a a detached house to a 
building split into multiple addressable units (eg terraces, flats).
I would recommend not duplicating addr:housename and name. Generally 
it's best to avoid putting the same information in more than one address 
tag. For most addresses addr:housename is the best choice and name can 
then be used for things like business names.


Cheers,
Will


On 28/01/2019 22:45, Paul Berry wrote:

Sorry, I only have yet more questions.

Once you get out into rural areas, it's sometimes the case that an 
entire hamlet is covered by a one or two postcodes. There may be named 
streets but according to RM/PAF these are ignored and such addresses 
take the form: building name/number, locality, post town, postcode. 
The more natural fit, following the structure prompted in the iD 
editor, for example, would be building name/number, street, locality*, 
postcode.


*The locality suggested depends on how the area you're working in has 
been mapped. Obviously when mapping you are free to override this.


HD8 8XU & HD8 8XY are a case in point. Do we map to fit the validator 
— in this case, https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/HD/HD8/8 
which they have fallen foul of — or something else?


Even in villages with established streets and house numbers, there 
will be outlying properties where the street names will be foregone: 
S36 7GG is an example of this.


Additionally, it's not clear whether name or addr:housename (or both) 
should be used when mapping anything from a a detached house to a 
building split into multiple addressable units (eg terraces, flats).


Regards,
/Paul/

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 22:05, Richard Fairhurst > wrote:


I'm not quite sure what you've done with the quoting but you've
attributed me
as writing your reply, which evidently I didn't. :)

Will Phillips wrote:
> I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a
> guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be
becoming
> less important, but when most people are asked for their
address, they
> will give their address as defined by Royal Mail.
>
> Looking at the Companies House Registered Companies data for
> Charlbury, I find 235 addresses of which 170 include Chipping
Norton.
> I find Registered Companies data useful because the addresses
appear
> unvalidated and therefore show addresses as people actually
enter them.

No-one in Charlbury describes themselves as living in Chipping Norton.
Honestly, no-one. It's a separate town.

Companies House data for my company shows a registered address of
11 Market
Street, Charlbury, Chipping Norton. That is not because I think I
live in
Chipping Norton. That is because, when you register a company, the
Companies
House autocomplete thing takes your postcode and fills in the
Royal Mail
post-town and other details from PAF.

(TBH, I'm not entirely convinced post towns help Royal Mail in any
case,
given the amount of mail mistakenly delivered to us that is
actually meant
for Mr G--- at 11 Market Street, Chipping Norton...)

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

___
Talk-GB mailing 

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Colin Smale]

Chris, what would you see as a good data model for a UK address in OSM?
Just house number/name, street, postcode? It has been mentioned a couple
of times in this thread that the "addr:" model was intended in the UK to
contain postal addresses, not any other sort of address. Are you
suggesting only storing a subset of the full postal address, and doing a
PAF lookup to get the other fields? 

Apart from the PAF, GeoPlace is the other central repository of address
info which it obtains from LAs and RM. In this document it seems to
indicate that besides the postcode, the Post Town is also assigned by RM
(see page 50): 

https://www.geoplace.co.uk/helpdesk/library/-/asset_publisher/3pCkRTd6bAi9/document/id/335107


On 2019-01-28 23:18, Chris Hill wrote:

> On 28/01/2019 21:56, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
> On 2019-01-28 22:22, Chris Hill wrote: 
> Post town do not exist, and never have. They are a fiction invented by Royal 
> Mail for their own internal use which they persuaded the public into using 
> for the sole benefit of Royal Mail. 
> ...and for the benefit of anyone posting a letter and expecting it to get 
> delivered properly...
 RM used to use postal towns when post was sorted by hand, but as soon
as mechanised sorting based on postcodes took over postal towns were
just a legacy that no one needed any more. In 1976 I posted a batch of
postcodes from my holiday in Norway. As an experiment I addressed one to
my parents as Number 10, HU14 3BA, UK. It arrived on the same day as all
the others because it had a postcode on it. So post towns were beginning
to be obsolete in 1976.

> In the UK places (as opposed to admin areas) don't have well-defined borders 
> unfortunately. If you live in the "no-mans land" between two villages there 
> is in many cases no way of determining if you are in Village A or Village B.
 Why does a postal town help with this? The postcode is much more
precise than a generalised post town that will cover a wide area - that
was the point of a post town.

>> Addresses are not maintained by RM, local authorities are responsible for 
>> addresses (which obviously don't include postal towns), except for the 
>> postcode. Most LAs have a system to request a new postcode from RM when a 
>> planning application gets approved that will need a new postcode.
> 
> The LA is certainly responsible for house names/numbers and street names. 
> Wouldn't all the rest (not just the post town) be down to RM?
 No the process is that RM only supply the postcode.

>> I don't see what purpose adding post towns to OSM would serve. The ONLY 
>> people who ever used it were Royal Mail as they were the only organisation 
>> to have a sorting office there. I'm sure RM don't need OSM to make 
>> deliveries, so who would we be benefiting by including this? To anyone else 
>> looking for an address the postal town is just confusing.
> 
> Are you saying is that there is no point in adding addresses to OSM? 
> Addresses are also useful for the senders of letters, or users of navigation 
> systems, so I think that might be a little controversial.
 Of course not. Addresses are a fine idea, but real addresses that
actually exist on the ground, not some mythical, out-of-date idea used
by one organisation in the past.

> This document gives loads of examples to aid the interpretation of PAF fields 
> https://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/programmers_guide_edition_7_v5.pdf
 The RM PAF is not the definitive address list for the UK, it is just
the way RM sees it. It is widely used because there is no other
published list of addresses. If we ever see a proper national address
list compiled from the UPRN that local authorities maintain it will not
include any field introduced by a company such as post town. OSM can
help here by not confusing addresses with RM's muddled postal addresses.
 

-- 
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Paul Berry]

Sorry, I only have yet more questions.

Once you get out into rural areas, it's sometimes the case that an entire
hamlet is covered by a one or two postcodes. There may be named streets but
according to RM/PAF these are ignored and such addresses take the form:
building name/number, locality, post town, postcode. The more natural fit,
following the structure prompted in the iD editor, for example, would be
building name/number, street, locality*, postcode.

*The locality suggested depends on how the area you're working in has been
mapped. Obviously when mapping you are free to override this.

HD8 8XU & HD8 8XY are a case in point. Do we map to fit the validator — in
this case, https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/HD/HD8/8 which they
have fallen foul of — or something else?

Even in villages with established streets and house numbers, there will be
outlying properties where the street names will be foregone: S36 7GG is an
example of this.

Additionally, it's not clear whether name or addr:housename (or both)
should be used when mapping anything from a a detached house to a building
split into multiple addressable units (eg terraces, flats).

Regards,
*Paul*

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 22:05, Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> I'm not quite sure what you've done with the quoting but you've attributed
> me
> as writing your reply, which evidently I didn't. :)
>
> Will Phillips wrote:
> > I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a
> > guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be becoming
> > less important, but when most people are asked for their address, they
> > will give their address as defined by Royal Mail.
> >
> > Looking at the Companies House Registered Companies data for
> > Charlbury, I find 235 addresses of which 170 include Chipping Norton.
> > I find Registered Companies data useful because the addresses appear
> > unvalidated and therefore show addresses as people actually enter them.
>
> No-one in Charlbury describes themselves as living in Chipping Norton.
> Honestly, no-one. It's a separate town.
>
> Companies House data for my company shows a registered address of 11 Market
> Street, Charlbury, Chipping Norton. That is not because I think I live in
> Chipping Norton. That is because, when you register a company, the
> Companies
> House autocomplete thing takes your postcode and fills in the Royal Mail
> post-town and other details from PAF.
>
> (TBH, I'm not entirely convinced post towns help Royal Mail in any case,
> given the amount of mail mistakenly delivered to us that is actually meant
> for Mr G--- at 11 Market Street, Chipping Norton...)
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Chris Hill]

On 28/01/2019 21:56, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2019-01-28 22:22, Chris Hill wrote:

Post town do not exist, and never have. They are a fiction invented 
by Royal Mail for their own internal use which they persuaded the 
public into using for the sole benefit of Royal Mail.
...and for the benefit of anyone posting a letter and expecting it to 
get delivered properly...
RM used to use postal towns when post was sorted by hand, but as soon as 
mechanised sorting based on postcodes took over postal towns were just a 
legacy that no one needed any more. In 1976 I posted a batch of 
postcodes from my holiday in Norway. As an experiment I addressed one to 
my parents as Number 10, HU14 3BA, UK. It arrived on the same day as all 
the others because it had a postcode on it. So post towns were beginning 
to be obsolete in 1976.
In the UK places (as opposed to admin areas) don't have well-defined 
borders unfortunately. If you live in the "no-mans land" between two 
villages there is in many cases no way of determining if you are in 
Village A or Village B.
Why does a postal town help with this? The postcode is much more precise 
than a generalised post town that will cover a wide area - that was the 
point of a post town.
Addresses are not maintained by RM, local authorities are responsible 
for addresses (which obviously don't include postal towns), except 
for the postcode. Most LAs have a system to request a new postcode 
from RM when a planning application gets approved that will need a 
new postcode.
The LA is certainly responsible for house names/numbers and street 
names. Wouldn't all the rest (not just the post town) be down to RM?

No the process is that RM only supply the postcode.
I don't see what purpose adding post towns to OSM would serve. The 
ONLY people who ever used it were Royal Mail as they were the only 
organisation to have a sorting office there. I'm sure RM don't need 
OSM to make deliveries, so who would we be benefiting by including 
this? To anyone else looking for an address the postal town is just 
confusing.
Are you saying is that there is no point in adding addresses to OSM? 
Addresses are also useful for the senders of letters, or users of 
navigation systems, so I think that might be a little controversial.
Of course not. Addresses are a fine idea, but real addresses that 
actually exist on the ground, not some mythical, out-of-date idea used 
by one organisation in the past.


This document gives loads of examples to aid the interpretation of PAF 
fields

https://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/programmers_guide_edition_7_v5.pdf

The RM PAF is not the definitive address list for the UK, it is just the 
way RM sees it. It is widely used because there is no other published 
list of addresses. If we ever see a proper national address list 
compiled from the UPRN that local authorities maintain it will not 
include any field introduced by a company such as post town. OSM can 
help here by not confusing addresses with RM's muddled postal addresses.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Richard Fairhurst]

I'm not quite sure what you've done with the quoting but you've attributed me
as writing your reply, which evidently I didn't. :)

Will Phillips wrote:
> I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a 
> guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be becoming 
> less important, but when most people are asked for their address, they 
> will give their address as defined by Royal Mail.
>
> Looking at the Companies House Registered Companies data for 
> Charlbury, I find 235 addresses of which 170 include Chipping Norton. 
> I find Registered Companies data useful because the addresses appear 
> unvalidated and therefore show addresses as people actually enter them.

No-one in Charlbury describes themselves as living in Chipping Norton.
Honestly, no-one. It's a separate town.

Companies House data for my company shows a registered address of 11 Market
Street, Charlbury, Chipping Norton. That is not because I think I live in
Chipping Norton. That is because, when you register a company, the Companies
House autocomplete thing takes your postcode and fills in the Royal Mail
post-town and other details from PAF.

(TBH, I'm not entirely convinced post towns help Royal Mail in any case,
given the amount of mail mistakenly delivered to us that is actually meant
for Mr G--- at 11 Market Street, Chipping Norton...)

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-01-28 22:22, Chris Hill wrote:

> Post town do not exist, and never have. They are a fiction invented by Royal 
> Mail for their own internal use which they persuaded the public into using 
> for the sole benefit of Royal Mail.

...and for the benefit of anyone posting a letter and expecting it to
get delivered properly... 

In the UK places (as opposed to admin areas) don't have well-defined
borders unfortunately. If you live in the "no-mans land" between two
villages there is in many cases no way of determining if you are in
Village A or Village B. 

> Addresses are not maintained by RM, local authorities are responsible for 
> addresses (which obviously don't include postal towns), except for the 
> postcode. Most LAs have a system to request a new postcode from RM when a 
> planning application gets approved that will need a new postcode.

The LA is certainly responsible for house names/numbers and street
names. Wouldn't all the rest (not just the post town) be down to RM? 

> I don't see what purpose adding post towns to OSM would serve. The ONLY 
> people who ever used it were Royal Mail as they were the only organisation to 
> have a sorting office there. I'm sure RM don't need OSM to make deliveries, 
> so who would we be benefiting by including this? To anyone else looking for 
> an address the postal town is just confusing.

Are you saying is that there is no point in adding addresses to OSM?
Addresses are also useful for the senders of letters, or users of
navigation systems, so I think that might be a little controversial.

This document gives loads of examples to aid the interpretation of PAF
fields 
https://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/programmers_guide_edition_7_v5.pdf___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Mark Goodge]

On 28/01/2019 18:50, Lester Caine wrote:

On 28/01/2019 18:24, Will Phillips wrote:


There are certainly occasions when the street name is needed. For 
example, I recently surveyed a single postcode (DE72 2HP) containing 
two houses with the same house name, but different street names.  
Postcodes do sometimes cover two streets in rural areas. In these 
cases one might technically be a subsidiary street, but it's often not 
obvious which one.


One could say that DE72 2HP is breaking Royal Mail's own rules, but it 
is a rare exception to the rule, and often you find the street is 
actually the secondary build reference rather than the street in the raw 
data.


It isn't breaking a rule. The rule is that unit + street + postcode is 
the minimum required for an unambiguous postal address, as far as 
standard postcodes are concerned (large user postcodes are different, of 
course, but they, too, are a minority).


It is often the case that a postcode only covers a single street. But 
that's by no means universal, and it certainly isn't rare that it covers 
more than one.


Bear in mind that the whole point of the postcode system is to 
facilitate the delivery of post by Royal Mail. The final two characters 
of a postcode are the "walk" - literally, the smallest unit of the 
postman's round. And if there happens to be a pair of short streets, or 
a short street off a longer one, then they are often incorporated into 
the same walk. Topologically, this is the most common walk:


 -

but this is a common one, too:

 ---
  |

or this:

 |
 |--
 |

If the "vertical" section has a different name to the horizontal 
section, then it will typically also have duplicate numbering. Which 
means the street name is necessary to disambiguate.


I've just had a look at the Land Registry price paid data for my 
postcode area (WR), and there are 364 postcodes within it that are 
associated with more than one street name. That's a not a trivial or 
ignorable number, by any means, even if it is only a minority of 
postcodes. To guarantee a completely deliverable postal address, you 
need the street name.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Will Phillips]

On 28/01/2019 15:06, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a 
guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be becoming 
less important, but when most people are asked for their address, they 
will give their address as defined by Royal Mail. In cases where local 
people feel this is wrong, then by all means don't use the post town 
or use addr:posttown instead.


Looking at the Companies House Registered Companies data for 
Charlbury, I find 235 addresses of which 170 include Chipping Norton. 
I find Registered Companies data useful because the addresses appear 
unvalidated and therefore show addresses as people actually enter them.


I don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a guide for 
what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be becoming less 
important, but when most people are asked for their address, they will 
still give it as defined by Royal Mail. In cases where local people feel 
this is wrong, then by all means don't use the post town or use 
addr:posttown instead.


Looking at the Companies House Registered Companies data for Charlbury, 
I find 235 addresses of which 170 include Chipping Norton. I find 
Registered Companies data useful because the addresses appear 
unvalidated and therefore show addresses as people actually enter them.


Cheers,
Will

On 28/01/2019 15:06, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Colin Smale wrote:

As you will know RM have their own particular ideas of the
geography of the UK, all done for their own convenience. It
would certainly avoid some confusion if we used addr:posttown
instead of addr:city.

Fully agree.

I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a 
guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be 
becoming less important, but when most people are asked for their 
address, they will give their address as defined by Royal Mail. In 
cases where local people feel this is wrong, then by all means don't 
use the post town or use addr:posttown instead. Looking at the 
Companies House Registered Companies data for Charlbury, I find 235 
addresses of which 170 include Chipping Norton. I find Registered 
Companies data useful because the addresses appear unvalidated and 
therefore show addresses as people actually enter them.



Richard

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34514024



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Lester Caine]

On 28/01/2019 18:24, Will Phillips wrote:

On 28/01/2019 17:28, Lester Caine wrote:
The reality is that for the UK ALL we need is the Postcode to supply a 
reference to the Royal Mail 'postal address' as that is purely a Royal 
Mail invention anyway.  I personally don't see the need to add 
'addr:street' everywhere but that is what people seem to prefer. 
Adding several more addr: fields to EVERY building is just taking 
things too far? 


There are certainly occasions when the street name is needed. For 
example, I recently surveyed a single postcode (DE72 2HP) containing two 
houses with the same house name, but different street names.  Postcodes 
do sometimes cover two streets in rural areas. In these cases one might 
technically be a subsidiary street, but it's often not obvious which one.


One could say that DE72 2HP is breaking Royal Mail's own rules, but it 
is a rare exception to the rule, and often you find the street is 
actually the secondary build reference rather than the street in the raw 
data.


More generally, if we only included the postcode surely there would 
often be no way to discover the correct street without referring to 
closed proprietary data, and a key motivation for adding addresses to 
OSM is to avoid that.


I'm still of a camp that prefers a proper relational dataset rather than 
'flat file'. There is no reason we can't have tables of open source data 
that we reference and a single copy of the details.


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Will Phillips]

On 28/01/2019 17:28, Lester Caine wrote:
The reality is that for the UK ALL we need is the Postcode to supply a 
reference to the Royal Mail 'postal address' as that is purely a Royal 
Mail invention anyway.  I personally don't see the need to add 
'addr:street' everywhere but that is what people seem to prefer. 
Adding several more addr: fields to EVERY building is just taking 
things too far? 


There are certainly occasions when the street name is needed. For 
example, I recently surveyed a single postcode (DE72 2HP) containing two 
houses with the same house name, but different street names.  Postcodes 
do sometimes cover two streets in rural areas. In these cases one might 
technically be a subsidiary street, but it's often not obvious which one.


More generally, if we only included the postcode surely there would 
often be no way to discover the correct street without referring to 
closed proprietary data, and a key motivation for adding addresses to 
OSM is to avoid that.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-01-28 18:32, Andrzej wrote:

> Hi Will,
> 
> These are very good examples, I wasn't aware of such places. They would 
> indeed best fit addr:locality. How about using addr:locality together with 
> addr:town/suburb/village/hamlet then? Having multiple well defined tags is 
> good - they add useful information. We are not designing an internal PAF 
> database for RM - OSM is supposed to be used for many different purposes, 
> some of which we can't even predict. From this point of view, the richer and 
> the more precise the language the better.

In the UK, the concept of an address is driven by the postal system.
Everybody knows their address, whether they agree with it or not, and
everybody understands that its function is to allow RM (and therefore
everybody with a route planner) to find the right letterbox.

> I want to clarify what I meant by "almost offensive". We are asking people to 
> tag their towns with names of towns they don't relate to, and to add insult 
> to injury we want them to tag their own towns as "localities". At best people 
> will ignore this scheme, at worst they will get very upset. In my discussions 
> about this topic people felt very strongly about their home towns.

Why do you say people don't relate to their address? The addr prefix
makes it very clear that the OSM data refers to an address. Everyone
knows their address. I agree that the use of the word "locality" in this
concept may surprise some, as it is RM terminology. But that's what
happens in data modelling - you have to find a label somehow. The
concept (of a named fuzzy area smaller than a town) exists in UK
addresses, whatever you choose to call it. If we are aiming to find a
way to represent it in OSM, then we have to make a choice as to how to
label it. It is NOT a "village" or a "suburb", even when its name may
suggest that.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

Hi Will,

These are very good examples, I wasn't aware of such places. They would indeed 
best fit addr:locality. How about using addr:locality together with 
addr:town/suburb/village/hamlet then? Having multiple well defined tags is good 
- they add useful information. We are not designing an internal PAF database 
for RM - OSM is supposed to be used for many different purposes, some of which 
we can't even predict. From this point of view, the richer and the more precise 
the language the better. 

I want to clarify what I meant by "almost offensive". We are asking people to 
tag their towns with names of towns they don't relate to, and to add insult to 
injury we want them to tag their own towns as "localities". At best people will 
ignore this scheme, at worst they will get very upset. In my discussions about 
this topic people felt very strongly about their home towns. 

Best regards, 
Andrzej 



On 29 January 2019 00:08:11 GMT+08:00, Will Phillips  wrote:
>
>> Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to
>addr:town 
>> and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address 
>> where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but 
>> locality sounds almost offensive. 
>To me 'locality' just sounds neutral. I don't particularly object to 
>addr:town and addr:village, but it does mean we end up with at least 
>three tags rather than one, because in cities suburbs often don't fit 
>easily into those tags, hence the use of addr:suburb.
>
>> Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names
>are 
>> written before street names, not after them.
>In my experience this often isn't true, perhaps look at more examples. 
>It is relatively common for business park and industrial estate names
>to 
>appear after street names.
>
>Examples:
>Lenton Lane Industrial Estate, Nottingham
>http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.17632=52.93295=OSM,1,15=%22Lenton%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22=SearchOpendataJson=1
>
>Trent Lane Industrial Estate, Castle Donington
>http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.34152=52.85018=OSM,1,15=%22Trent%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22=SearchOpendataJson=1
>
>Sherwood [Business] Park, Annesley,
>http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.25353=53.07037=OSM,1,15=%22Sherwood%20Park%22=SearchOpendataJson=1
>
>Regards,
>Will
>
>
>
>On 28/01/2019 15:06, Andrzej wrote:
>> Is it possible to use addr:locality for both towns and villages? That
>
>> could simplify things quite a bit and I have yet to see an address 
>> that needs a post town and two levels of localities below.
>>
>> Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to
>addr:town 
>> and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address 
>> where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but 
>> locality sounds almost offensive.
>>
>> Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names
>are 
>> written before street names, not after them. They're IMO what RM
>calls 
>> "dependent thoroughfares". For these I would simply use addr:place, 
>> which can already be combined with addr:housename and 
>> addr:housenumber. Alternatively we could make a new tag like
>addr:campus.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Andrzej
>>
>>
>> On 28 January 2019 20:36:24 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Will,
>>
>> On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For
>>> this I have usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas
>>> and addr:locality elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to
>>> have just one recommended tag, perhaps addr:locality, because
>>> having addr:town addr:village and addr:suburb seems too
>>> complicated. Eventually it would be good if editing software, in
>>> particular iD, could provide an extra field to enter the
>>> locality, and it would perhaps be easier for that to happen if
>>> there was only one tag. New mappers often seem to have
>difficulty
>>> entering addresses to the form that they wish and I think the
>>> lack of a locality field is part of the reason.
>>>
>>> For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using
>>> addr:sublocality is a possibility, although I wonder whether
>just
>>> sticking with addr:village for this less common situation would
>>> be easier. It depends a bit on whether this tag is only likely
>to
>>> be used for villages and hamlets, or whether it might be useful
>>> in other cases. For example, sometimes names of industrial
>>> estates appear in addresses in a similar way to sublocalities.
>> I don't see any advantage in "addr:village" and
>"addr:suburb" just
>> because they sound familiar or are existing tags. What we are
>> discussing here is a UK-specific solution. The (Double) Dependent
>> Localities may or may not correspond to what people perceive as a
>> "village" or "suburb". In the quoted example, 

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Lester Caine]

On 28/01/2019 15:31, Tom Hughes wrote:
The notion that I should tag addresses in Charlbury with 
"addr:city=Chipping
Norton", a town 6 miles away, just because one private delivery 
operator[1]

uses Chipping Norton as an optional part of their addressing is... one of
the more outlandish ideas I've heard in OSM tagging circles, and that's
saying a lot.


To be fair "addr:city=Chipping Norton" would be outlandish even for
an address *in* Chipping Norton...


'city' has always been the wrong title for the field across every 
system, but it is consistent and as far as I am concerned it is the name 
of the primary location, be it 'Birmingham', 'Chipping Norton' or 
'Saintbury'. It does away with the need to make any decision on the 
'size' of the place. That additional places can be added to location to 
more accurately identify it depends on the application, so addr: may 
consist of a lot more elements than we currently cater for anyway.


The reality is that for the UK ALL we need is the Postcode to supply a 
reference to the Royal Mail 'postal address' as that is purely a Royal 
Mail invention anyway.  I personally don't see the need to add 
'addr:street' everywhere but that is what people seem to prefer. Adding 
several more addr: fields to EVERY building is just taking things too far?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Will Phillips]

Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town 
and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address 
where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but 
locality sounds almost offensive. 
To me 'locality' just sounds neutral. I don't particularly object to 
addr:town and addr:village, but it does mean we end up with at least 
three tags rather than one, because in cities suburbs often don't fit 
easily into those tags, hence the use of addr:suburb.


Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names are 
written before street names, not after them.
In my experience this often isn't true, perhaps look at more examples. 
It is relatively common for business park and industrial estate names to 
appear after street names.


Examples:
Lenton Lane Industrial Estate, Nottingham
http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.17632=52.93295=OSM,1,15=%22Lenton%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22=SearchOpendataJson=1

Trent Lane Industrial Estate, Castle Donington
http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.34152=52.85018=OSM,1,15=%22Trent%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22=SearchOpendataJson=1

Sherwood [Business] Park, Annesley,
http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.25353=53.07037=OSM,1,15=%22Sherwood%20Park%22=SearchOpendataJson=1

Regards,
Will



On 28/01/2019 15:06, Andrzej wrote:
Is it possible to use addr:locality for both towns and villages? That 
could simplify things quite a bit and I have yet to see an address 
that needs a post town and two levels of localities below.


Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town 
and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address 
where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but 
locality sounds almost offensive.


Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names are 
written before street names, not after them. They're IMO what RM calls 
"dependent thoroughfares". For these I would simply use addr:place, 
which can already be combined with addr:housename and 
addr:housenumber. Alternatively we could make a new tag like addr:campus.


Best regards,
Andrzej


On 28 January 2019 20:36:24 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale 
 wrote:


Hi Will,

On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:


Hi,

I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For
this I have usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas
and addr:locality elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to
have just one recommended tag, perhaps addr:locality, because
having addr:town addr:village and addr:suburb seems too
complicated. Eventually it would be good if editing software, in
particular iD, could provide an extra field to enter the
locality, and it would perhaps be easier for that to happen if
there was only one tag. New mappers often seem to have difficulty
entering addresses to the form that they wish and I think the
lack of a locality field is part of the reason.

For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using
addr:sublocality is a possibility, although I wonder whether just
sticking with addr:village for this less common situation would
be easier. It depends a bit on whether this tag is only likely to
be used for villages and hamlets, or whether it might be useful
in other cases. For example, sometimes names of industrial
estates appear in addresses in a similar way to sublocalities.

I don't see any advantage in "addr:village" and "addr:suburb" just
because they sound familiar or are existing tags. What we are
discussing here is a UK-specific solution. The (Double) Dependent
Localities may or may not correspond to what people perceive as a
"village" or "suburb". In the quoted example, "Cambridge Science
Park" is IMHO neither.


I only use addr:city for post towns, although I recognise not all
mappers agree with this, and I appreciate there are arguments
both ways. I was thinking about this recently when adding
addresses in Lees near Derby. The post town is Ashbourne, but
this seems slightly incongruous because the village is much
nearer to Derby. I chose not to include addr:city and only used
addr:locality for the village name.
I feel the main argument in favour of using post towns for
addr:city is that it helps to keep the data consistent because
what to use often becomes confusing otherwise. To use the example
of Lees I mentioned above, it would be easy to end up with a
situation where addr:city contained perhaps four values if the
data was entered by different people without any guide as to what
to use (the most likely possibilities being Lees, Dalby Lees,
Derby or Ashbourne).
In cases where local residents consider Royal Mail's choice of
post town to be contentious, usually because it is miles from
where they live, it might be sensible to recognise addr:posttown
as an 

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Tom Hughes]

On 28/01/2019 15:06, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


The notion that I should tag addresses in Charlbury with "addr:city=Chipping
Norton", a town 6 miles away, just because one private delivery operator[1]
uses Chipping Norton as an optional part of their addressing is... one of
the more outlandish ideas I've heard in OSM tagging circles, and that's
saying a lot.


To be fair "addr:city=Chipping Norton" would be outlandish even for
an address *in* Chipping Norton...

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

Is it possible to use addr:locality for both towns and villages? That could 
simplify things quite a bit and I have yet to see an address that needs a post 
town and two levels of localities below.

Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town and 
addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address where they 
wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but locality sounds almost 
offensive. 

Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names are written 
before street names, not after them. They're IMO what RM calls "dependent 
thoroughfares". For these I would simply use addr:place, which can already be 
combined with addr:housename and addr:housenumber. Alternatively we could make 
a new tag like addr:campus.

Best regards, 
Andrzej 


On 28 January 2019 20:36:24 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale  
wrote:
>Hi Will, 
>
>On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For this
>I have usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas and
>addr:locality elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to have just
>one recommended tag, perhaps addr:locality, because having addr:town
>addr:village and addr:suburb seems too complicated. Eventually it would
>be good if editing software, in particular iD, could provide an extra
>field to enter the locality, and it would perhaps be easier for that to
>happen if there was only one tag. New mappers often seem to have
>difficulty entering addresses to the form that they wish and I think
>the lack of a locality field is part of the reason. 
>> 
>> For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using
>addr:sublocality is a possibility, although I wonder whether just
>sticking with addr:village for this less common situation would be
>easier. It depends a bit on whether this tag is only likely to be used
>for villages and hamlets, or whether it might be useful in other cases.
>For example, sometimes names of industrial estates appear in addresses
>in a similar way to sublocalities.
>
>I don't see any advantage in "addr:village" and "addr:suburb" just
>because they sound familiar or are existing tags. What we are
>discussing
>here is a UK-specific solution. The (Double) Dependent Localities may
>or
>may not correspond to what people perceive as a "village" or "suburb".
>In the quoted example, "Cambridge Science Park" is IMHO neither. 
>
>> I only use addr:city for post towns, although I recognise not all
>mappers agree with this, and I appreciate there are arguments both
>ways. I was thinking about this recently when adding addresses in Lees
>near Derby. The post town is Ashbourne, but this seems slightly
>incongruous because the village is much nearer to Derby. I chose not to
>include addr:city and only used addr:locality for the village name.
>
>> I feel the main argument in favour of using post towns for addr:city
>is that it helps to keep the data consistent because what to use often
>becomes confusing otherwise. To use the example of Lees I mentioned
>above, it would be easy to end up with a situation where addr:city
>contained perhaps four values if the data was entered by different
>people without any guide as to what to use (the most likely
>possibilities being Lees, Dalby Lees, Derby or Ashbourne).
>
>> In cases where local residents consider Royal Mail's choice of post
>town to be contentious, usually because it is miles from where they
>live, it might be sensible to recognise addr:posttown as an
>alternative.
>
>The accepted paradigm is that the address should represent the postal
>address, and not any administrative relationships. As you will know RM
>have their own particular ideas of the geography of the UK, all done
>for
>their own convenience. It would certainly avoid some confusion if we
>used addr:posttown instead of addr:city.
>
>Regards, 
>Colin
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Richard Fairhurst]

Colin Smale wrote:
> As you will know RM have their own particular ideas of the 
> geography of the UK, all done for their own convenience. It 
> would certainly avoid some confusion if we used addr:posttown 
> instead of addr:city.

Fully agree.

The notion that I should tag addresses in Charlbury with "addr:city=Chipping
Norton", a town 6 miles away, just because one private delivery operator[1]
uses Chipping Norton as an optional part of their addressing is... one of
the more outlandish ideas I've heard in OSM tagging circles, and that's
saying a lot.

Richard

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34514024



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Driving Test Centres

[Paul Berry]

(Moment of reflection.) Sorry, you're right, of course they're not. That'll
teach me to attempt to multitask at work.

As you were.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 12:52, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 28/01/2019 12:45, Paul Berry wrote:
> > Does https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddriving_school
> > not fit the bill?
>
> Schools are closer to the poacher than the gamekeeper!  No.  I don't
> think they are equivalent.
>
> > Tag usage here:
> > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/amenity=driving_school#map
> >
>
> Says that the tag is not sufficiently used to be mappable!
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Driving Test Centres

[Paul Berry]

Does https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddriving_school not
fit the bill?
Tag usage here:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/amenity=driving_school#map

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Mike Baggaley  wrote:

> You could also add government=transportation to office=government
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Colin Smale]

Hi Will, 

On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For this I have 
> usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas and addr:locality 
> elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to have just one recommended tag, 
> perhaps addr:locality, because having addr:town addr:village and addr:suburb 
> seems too complicated. Eventually it would be good if editing software, in 
> particular iD, could provide an extra field to enter the locality, and it 
> would perhaps be easier for that to happen if there was only one tag. New 
> mappers often seem to have difficulty entering addresses to the form that 
> they wish and I think the lack of a locality field is part of the reason. 
> 
> For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using 
> addr:sublocality is a possibility, although I wonder whether just sticking 
> with addr:village for this less common situation would be easier. It depends 
> a bit on whether this tag is only likely to be used for villages and hamlets, 
> or whether it might be useful in other cases. For example, sometimes names of 
> industrial estates appear in addresses in a similar way to sublocalities.

I don't see any advantage in "addr:village" and "addr:suburb" just
because they sound familiar or are existing tags. What we are discussing
here is a UK-specific solution. The (Double) Dependent Localities may or
may not correspond to what people perceive as a "village" or "suburb".
In the quoted example, "Cambridge Science Park" is IMHO neither. 

> I only use addr:city for post towns, although I recognise not all mappers 
> agree with this, and I appreciate there are arguments both ways. I was 
> thinking about this recently when adding addresses in Lees near Derby. The 
> post town is Ashbourne, but this seems slightly incongruous because the 
> village is much nearer to Derby. I chose not to include addr:city and only 
> used addr:locality for the village name.

> I feel the main argument in favour of using post towns for addr:city is that 
> it helps to keep the data consistent because what to use often becomes 
> confusing otherwise. To use the example of Lees I mentioned above, it would 
> be easy to end up with a situation where addr:city contained perhaps four 
> values if the data was entered by different people without any guide as to 
> what to use (the most likely possibilities being Lees, Dalby Lees, Derby or 
> Ashbourne).

> In cases where local residents consider Royal Mail's choice of post town to 
> be contentious, usually because it is miles from where they live, it might be 
> sensible to recognise addr:posttown as an alternative.

The accepted paradigm is that the address should represent the postal
address, and not any administrative relationships. As you will know RM
have their own particular ideas of the geography of the UK, all done for
their own convenience. It would certainly avoid some confusion if we
used addr:posttown instead of addr:city.

Regards, 
Colin___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Will Phillips]

Hi,

I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For this I 
have usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas and 
addr:locality elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to have just 
one recommended tag, perhaps addr:locality, because having addr:town 
addr:village and addr:suburb seems too complicated. Eventually it would 
be good if editing software, in particular iD, could provide an extra 
field to enter the locality, and it would perhaps be easier for that to 
happen if there was only one tag. New mappers often seem to have 
difficulty entering addresses to the form that they wish and I think the 
lack of a locality field is part of the reason.


For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using 
addr:sublocality is a possibility, although I wonder whether just 
sticking with addr:village for this less common situation would be 
easier. It depends a bit on whether this tag is only likely to be used 
for villages and hamlets, or whether it might be useful in other cases. 
For example, sometimes names of industrial estates appear in addresses 
in a similar way to sublocalities.


I only use addr:city for post towns, although I recognise not all 
mappers agree with this, and I appreciate there are arguments both ways. 
I was thinking about this recently when adding addresses in Lees near 
Derby. The post town is Ashbourne, but this seems slightly incongruous 
because the village is much nearer to Derby. I chose not to include 
addr:city and only used addr:locality for the village name.


I feel the main argument in favour of using post towns for addr:city is 
that it helps to keep the data consistent because what to use often 
becomes confusing otherwise. To use the example of Lees I mentioned 
above, it would be easy to end up with a situation where addr:city 
contained perhaps four values if the data was entered by different 
people without any guide as to what to use (the most likely 
possibilities being Lees, Dalby Lees, Derby or Ashbourne).


In cases where local residents consider Royal Mail's choice of post town 
to be contentious, usually because it is miles from where they live, it 
might be sensible to recognise addr:posttown as an alternative.


Regards,
Will

On 27/01/2019 20:40, Andrzej wrote:

Hi,

When working on post codes in East Anglia I realised the current 
address tagging scheme is insufficient for even fairly basic 
scenarios. I have already discussed the issues with some of the most 
experienced mappers and like to bring these issues to your attention. 
Robert has summarised his ideas in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping


The bottom line is, I would like to be tag commonly used addresses 
without losing information and without resorting to addr:full.


Issues:
1. Post towns (most pressing one because there is a lot of confusion 
around it). The UK is fairly unique in that not every town is a post 
town. This makes it impossible to tag e.g. Station Road, Histon, 
Cambridge CB24 9LF.
Wiki recommends addr:city to be used for tagging post towns 
(Cambridge) but then how do we tag Histon?
- Robert recommends sticking to the current meaning of addr:city and 
using addr:town and addr:village for town and village names, which, 
although not in wiki, are already being used in the UK. I like this 
solution because it is very explicit in what each addr: key means and 
it doesn't redefine addr:city.
- SK53 prefers using addr:city for everything (towns, even villages) 
and either not tagging post towns (they can be seen as a an internal 
detail of a closed Royal Mail database) or using a new tag for it, 
like addr:post_town. It is a simple solution, results in Histon being 
called Histon and not Cambridge (without introducing new tags for town 
and village names) and is commonly used. It is also a bit confusing 
(what exactly is a city?) and I think we we should at least support 
tagging post towns.


Key questions:
a) addr:city for post towns or towns and villages?
b) how to rag remaining information (respectively, towns and villages 
or post towns,)


2. Tagging addresses within campuses, business parks etc. There is 
addr:place but it is supposed to be used instead of addr:street. 
Again, Robert has a fairly decent proposal for that using addr:place 
or addr:locality and addr:parentstreet. Please comment.


2a. should buildings in campuses be tagged with 
addr:buildingnumber/name or addr:unit? I would prefer 
buildingname/number (as they are often subdivided) but these seem to 
be associated with addr:street.


3. Similar to (2) but for buildings. Tagging buildings that have e.g. 
a single name but multiple house numbers?


Best regards,
ndrw6




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb