On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 it.
exactly - so why say that the nearest road with a particular name is the addressable road? better to indicate exactly which way is the addressing element and leave routing for the "via" elements. > 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... 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. this is not an argument against using relations. this is only an argument against assuming that the nearest street is the addressing street, which i am not advocating. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
