Anthony:
Ugh, another point:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_
Categories
Putting all the elements which have addresses referencing a
street
into a relation seems to me to violate that principle.
No. There is a relation between the houses and the street. You
On 19.08.2010 01:05, John F. Eldredge wrote:
When you say process a nearby-search for the street name, how broadly is
nearby interpreted?
...it depends ;)
At first: Of course you're right.
Nashville, TN, USA, where I live, has a number of instances of streets that
were split by later
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Anthony:
Ugh, another point:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_
Categories
Putting all the elements which have addresses referencing a
street
into a relation seems to me to violate that
Anthony osm at inbox.org writes:
So I prefer to add the street name to the street (as name) and addr:street
to the building/shop etc.
I think for now that's probably the best solution. And just hope
there aren't too many instances of Main Street on the addr vs. Main
St on the way. And
It has been a while since the use of collection and street relations
for collections of ways belonging to the same street have been
discussed. I just had a look at
http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Planet/En/top_undocumented_relations.html
and both relations area apparently ±equally used. Of course I
Ulf wrote:
I just had a look at
http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Planet/En/top_undocumented_relation
s.html
and both relations area apparently ±equally used.
Can't help answering your question, Ulf, but in what way is
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
and both relations area apparently ±equally used.
True, it's not two but three relations proposals for the same purpose:
collection, street and associatedStreet
Althoughcollection is not limited to streets, it's also
However, associatedStreet is maybe not the most obvious choice for
joining, say, the segments of a motorway; at least I thought,
associatedStreet would be used for associating single ways (street
segments) with waypoints (symbolising addresses along the street
segment) only. In addition (being,
They both (street and collection) have problems. type=street is the
best type. role=member (or no role) would be the best role.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Since associatedStreet was historicaly the first proposal including house
numbers and is the most
Also I think the notion of general inheritance should be abandoned. A
tag should be on the street relation only if it applies to the street
as a whole, and not to the individual ways which make up the relation.
IOW, name is fine. oneway=yes, for a dual carriageway, wouldn't be
(even though the
Ugh, another point:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
Putting all the elements which have addresses referencing a street
into a relation seems to me to violate that principle.
What's needed is a way to put a reference to the street into the way
for the
Ulf Mehlig wrote:
... and then there is also the tag relatedStreet -- what's that? :-)
relatedStreet was the term used by the AddrInterpolation JOSM-plugin
before the associatedStreet proposal was created.
It is equivalent to associatedStreet and now obsolete.
Sebastian
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
According to the wiki, associatedStreet only allows one occurrence of
the street role,
Which is the main difference with the proposal 'street'. But this can be
changed. It doesn't disturb existing relations and again, we could
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
According to the wiki, associatedStreet only allows one occurrence of
the street role,
Which is the main difference with the proposal 'street'. But this can be
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
But changing it is probably a bad idea. Do we really want a relation
with 500 ways representing the street and 50,000 nodes representing
the buildings?
wow, 500 ways and 50,000 addresses just for one street ! Show me the map !
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
But changing it is probably a bad idea. Do we really want a relation
with 500 ways representing the street and 50,000 nodes representing
the buildings?
wow, 500
At 2010-08-18 10:39, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM,
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
But changing it is probably a bad idea. Do we really want a
relation
with 500 ways representing the street and 50,000 nodes representing
the buildings?
wow, 500 ways and 50,000 addresses just for
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
After rereading
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
I'm going to conclude that the proper place to put address information
is in the building data, not in the street data, and that
associatedStreet should therefore be
On Wednesday 18 August 2010 19:25:22 Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
According to the wiki, associatedStreet only allows one occurrence of
the street role,
Which is the main difference with the proposal 'street'. But this can be
changed.
We've
On 18.08.2010 19:21, Anthony wrote:
put a reference to the street into the way
for the building, not a way to put a reference to the building into
the way for the street. One possibility is to just use
addr:street=way:37863 or addr:street=relation:28917. But as there
would be no maintenance
).
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
From :mailto:wendo...@uni-paderborn.de
Date :Wed Aug 18 17:36:58 America/Chicago 2010
On 18.08.2010 19:21, Anthony wrote:
put a reference to the street into the way
for the building, not a way
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
On 18.08.2010 19:21, Anthony wrote:
put a reference to the street into the way
for the building, not a way to put a reference to the building into
the way for the street. One possibility is to just use
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
Isn't addr:street=Main Street enough?
It'd be nice to have an easy way to link the address to the street.
Oh yeah, another advantage (though this is
23 matches
Mail list logo
