> Well, as noted above, we won't be consistent, with manual mapping being > done both ways.
That's correct from the stats. And from the wiki, which shows it's okay to add addresses to the elements nodes and areas http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:housenumber http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses This means the decision process 'to merge or not to merge' can be exercised by the local community. Cheers, Johan ps I am however quite interested in the considerations the NYC community uses for this decision, please share them 2013/10/17 Paul Norman <[email protected]> > I've been sitting on this message, running some stats, but here it is > > > From: Alex Barth [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:35 AM > > To: Imports OpenStreetMap.org > > Subject: [Imports] NYC building + address import - to merge or not to > merge? > > > > 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. > > A review of the data shows that this may be true for some buildings and > addresses but is not true for others. As an example, see > > http://pnorman.dev.openstreetmap.org/imports/review/ny_buildings/positions.png > . > Some points are near addresses, some are near centroids, and some of > them are strangely at the back. > > > Here is a comparison of the two options. I'd like to discuss and > > decide at tonight's imports hangout. > > Note: Alex, Serge and myself discussed the import at length tonight. > > > ## Option 1: Merge addresses into buildings where possible > > > > ## Option 2: Always keep address points separate > > There is some repetition in the two sections, so I'm just going to extract > and rearrange points. See > http://lists.osm.org/pipermail/imports/2013-October/002275.html for the > original text > > > a) [points] is the NYC GIS way, making it nicer for GIS folks to use OSM > > GIS folks will have to deal with both so this doesn't really give either > method an advantage. There *will* be addresses on ways that they will > have to deal with. Additionally NYC is only part of OSM, so they have to > deal with practices elsewhere anyways. > > > a) we lose data [when merging points to buildings] > > I'd say the information lost is not significant, given that in many > buildings the point is just the centroid or a random point within the > building. It's not consistent enough to rely on for anything, as you've > stated: > > > 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. > > > b) Not regarding standing practice, merging addresses into buildings > > is an exception from the generally applicable method of doing separate > > address points. > > b) [merging] makes it harder for NYC GIS to leverage OSM > > How so? Keep in mind that NYC GIS will have to deal with > > - Addresses collected manually without any import tags > > - Addresses on building ways > > - Addresses on building ways where neither the address or building way > comes from an import > > - Addresses on building ways where OSM has split up a structure > differently than they have > > For consumers other than NYC GIS, they'll be in the same position of > multiple styles of mapping. > > > a) [Addresses on nodes inside buildings] diverges (but does not > violate) common OSM practice > > a) [Addresses on ways] is how a lot of buildings are done in OSM > > Unfortunately statistics are distorted by imports, but I had a look at > similar practices with merging and POIs with name=McDonald's. > > Of the 5523 locations which could be merged to building polygons, 3315, or > 60% were. There were another 5205 locations which were unable to be merged > onto a building, either because there were multiple POIs within the > building, or there was no building mapped. The actual percentage may be > higher as this I can imagine scenarios where the mapper knew there was > another POI in the building but it wasn't mapped. > > Results for 80% for name=Walmart and 60% for name=Safeway. > > > 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. > > Well, as noted above, we won't be consistent, with manual mapping being > done both ways. > > > _______________________________________________ > Imports mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
