On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Amos wrote: >> except when it doesn't - e.g: misspelled streets, deleted "in use" >> streets, etc... > > A little redundancy doesn't hurt - on the contrary, it makes spotting > mistakes easier.
and prevention is better than a cure. don't spot the mistakes - use the API's features to help prevent their occurrence. > And about deleted "in use" streets: If a house has a > certain address then it has that address, even if the street which used to > pass by the house is physically removed. There is no automatism in the real > world that links house addresses to streets, so why should there be in OSM? > If you remove the road next to a house node with an address, then the > address will of course remain unchanged until this is done explicitly... > just like in the real world. there are two uses for addressing: navigation and geo-location. the situation you describe would make navigation very difficult, so i think it does not happen much in the real world. "oh hais, my house address is so-and-so street, but that doesn't exist any more. please go via such-and-such road."? the two tagging methods are essentially the same (i.e: they both link elements to a way - and not necessarily the closest way) and result, after parsing, in essentially the same data model. the fundamental differences are: 1) the relatedStreet cannot refer to streets that do not exist and will prevent anyone attempting (possibly accidentally) to do this. 2) the addr:street represents address information textually, and therefore requires searching (which may fail, or may result in unintended items found) to lookup the street. i prefer using relations, but clearly both methods have merits. how hard is it to support both? cheers, matt _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
