On 14 October 2013 22:25, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd still merge the address from a point to a polygon if you are sure that > the address applies to the whole polygon. Entrances are mapped with a > different tag in OSM: entrance=main/yes etc. I agree with this, for both reasons. The address should go on the polygon. I also want to reflect on what the alternative implies. First, it creates a new set of implied relationship between address point and building polygon - that it some cases exact positioning means nothing, and yet in others it implies a building entrance by proximity. This is really hard for volunteer mappers to understand (e.g. only applies to NYC, isn't indicated by any editing tool). We should instead be explicit - if the address applies to the polygon, it should be on the polygon; if we know where the entrance is, it should be tagged as a building entrance. Secondly, it would imply that adding address information to a building polygon is the correct thing to do, everywhere except NYC. If any mapper gets "told off" for mapping using OSM conventions instead of NYC GIS conventions, I'd be furious! So yes, knowing where the entrance is is useful information, but it would be better to tag such information explicitly, rather than having it there by inference. If the data is not reliable enough to show that there is an entrance (as Frederik discussed) then we're not actually losing any information by tagging the building anyway. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
