I would tend to agree with you to keep address nodes separate from buildings. It makes mapping POI easier, makes geocoders more accurate, and is generally easier to work with as a dataset.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alex Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > (This is BCC to [email protected], conversation to happen on > [email protected].) > > At the NYC building and address import we're facing the following question: > > **In cases where there is one address point per building, should we merge > the address information onto the building polygon and toss the address > point?** > > Originally the answer was: yes. > > Now there's reason to revisit this decision: the data steward (Colin > Reilly from NYC GIS) told me that NYC GIS took great care to place > addresses at about where the entrance of the building sits. > > This makes me think that there's value in not tossing the address location > information but keep it in all cases, even if there is only one address per > building. > > Here is a comparison of the two options. I'd like to discuss and decide at > tonight's imports hangout. > > ## Option 1: Merge addresses into buildings where possible > > In cases where there is one address point within a building polygon, we > take address attributes, assign it to the building polygon and toss the > address point. > > Pros: > > a) This is how a lot of buildings are done in OSM > b) Not regarding standing practice, merging addresses into buildings is an > exception from the generally applicable method of doing separate address > points. > > Cons: > > a) we lose data > b) makes it harder for NYC GIS to leverage OSM > > ## Option 2: Always keep address points separate > > In this case we never merge addresses to building polygons, instead always > keep them as separate entities. > > Pros: > > a) this is the NYC GIS way, making it nicer for GIS folks to use OSM > b) this is the generally applicable method. No matter whether we have one > or multiple addresses you can expect to find a separate node carrying > address information. > c) retains useful information > > Cons: > > a) Diverges (but does not violate [1]) common OSM practice > > Note: it has been suggested to use the address location information to tag > an entrance. Unfortunately the data is not consistent enough to do this. > > ## Recommendation > > I'd really like to hear people's inputs here. Right now I'm leaning > towards Option 2 as it > > - retains valuable information > - does not violate OSM practice > > ## Status quo > > Note right now we've imported data in both formats :p I'm not worried > about this and I'll commit to make sure in the end we're consistent. Right > now the import is paused because of this open question. > > Ref: https://github.com/osmlab/nycbuildings/issues/15 > > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#How_to_map_addresses >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
