Re: [Tagging] AddrN
On 21 January 2015 at 13:17, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: And if that's the case, what's wrong with creating a node on the building for each additional valid address? People looking for an amenity could look up closest POIs after finding a secondary address. It's not a clean situation, It's a best guess approach, delivering lots of false positives, because the scope of address nodes is undefined. The address may be valid for the whole building, or only part of the building, or even for multiple buildings (take my postal address as an example). But that's not precisely true. The scope of an address node inside a building outline is this building. If you want to specify an address for a part of a building only, just split that building. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*
On 19 January 2015 at 11:08, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: That's wrong, as I've already explained in another message. When you write a letter to an address in Austria using a conscription number, you MUST omit the street name. Otherwise the letter will be returned as undeliverable. Similarly, the official address at a given time either contains a street+housenumber or a conscription number, not both. In villages where street+housenumber combinations are introduced, the conscription numbers become officially invalid. The reason why we want to keep them in OSM is that conscription numbers often remain in use for a long time, and the conscription number plates often stay in place (see photos in the proposals). Both statements are actually untrue. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] AddrN
Dmitry, In most cases the address of a POI is the same as the address of a building it's located in. The address of a building can be derived from address nodes within its outline ', and then extrapolated to other POIs in the same buildings. It doesn't work precisely when there's no outline, but in this case you've already lost the precision. Moreover, this operation has to be performed anyway to cope with really bad and incomplete data, so there's no reason to not re-utilise this functionally once again. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*
On 19 January 2015 at 11:33, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: I have been living in this country for all my life, and I worked at a post office for some months. So you can safely believe my statements. But all you mind to say it that it's all untrue. Well, maybe you also say that the heliocentric system is untrue, and that Man was created 4000 BC. I hope you are fine in your universe. If your country has effectively abolished conscription numbers, this is one thing. Another this is how they work in countries where they're used all the time. In my country, both numbers are used concurrently and together with street name, and this country together with a neighbouring country are the largest users of this addressing system to date. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*
No, it's not two addresses, it's just a single one. It's just a particular feature of it that you can omit a part of it (either of the building numbers or sometimes the street name if you have the conscription number). I've got your point, but I cant agree with you that it's not a multiple addresses tagging scheme. It doesn't actually matter if you agree or not, because it doesn't change the fact that buildings in CZ and SK don't have multiple addresses. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] AddrN
Oh no, why one more proposal? Another broken solution for a problem which is already solved. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] AddrN
Dmitry, Conscription numbers are not double addresses, you're mixing things up. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*
On 15 January 2015 at 17:08, Florian Schäfer flor...@schaeferban.de wrote: Hello Friedrich, in Czech Republic they have a similar problem: They have so called conscription numbers, which are unique in the whole city and additionally the normal housenumbers. They use the key addr:streetnumber (675,742× used) for the number unique within the street, addr:conscriptionnumber (2,632,784× used) for the number unique within the city and addr:housenumber for both separated by a slash (tagging for the renderer?!). This isn't actually a problem in CZ and SK at all. Conscription number and street number are used by Nominatim, but they're intentionally not rendered. Housenumber tag is left to be used as human-readable house number (sometimes it's two numbers separated by a slash, sometimes it's only one which is more appropriate in the specific context). -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*
On 15 January 2015 at 03:02, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: The proposal seems to be a good solution to this problem. This particular proposal seems to be a terrible solution to this problem. It requires changes to the software, and the tagging scheme is ugly as hell. At the same time, there's much simpler and better solution: placing address nodes inside the building polygon. This is already used, supported by any sort of software which can process regular OSM address tags, and it's not as ugly as addrN:. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...
Hi, Some places in the wiki mention cycleway:lanes:* tags, and those are indeed used in a few places (31 uses currently). It seems to me these tags are obsolete and have been replaced by bicycle:lanes:*, is that correct? Should I probably mass-replace them? -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] DxzDc
Hi, On 15 August 2014 16:29, Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com wrote: ZcSSxfsxzsvz CcCCf vfzzzdwzvbxcas cdzdzvxzdxzc I'm afraid I can't understand a word you're saying. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] min_age vs. minage
Hi, I'm for minage. Compare with minspeed and maxspeed, for example. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
Both maxspeed=countrycode:zone type and maxspeed=zone type are evil, as we need to have a separate DB for those zonal limits. Please, just use maxspeed=number. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
Hello, On 17 June 2014 13:36, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 6/17/14 5:24 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: The number should be tagged, and I would not expect a data consumer to use maxspeed tags, they are useful for validation. there are any number of reasons why a consumer might use a maxspeed tag, the most obvious of them being a routing engine attempting to approximate a fastest route. There's one even more obvious reasons: displaying a speed limit to a user in a navigation software. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways
Hello, On 17 June 2014 11:24, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I disagree with just using a number, the tags are there to indicate that the mapper had interpreted the speed limit from the type of road. Should the limits change they make finding the limits that require changes easier. How do users find out what the maxspeed actually is there if they don't have any external database, but just OSM dump? What you describe is more a task source:*=* tags solve. The number should be tagged, and I would not expect a data consumer to use maxspeed tags, they are useful for validation. Your expectation don't correspond the reality: these data are used very often, so they need to be in a usable form. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [osm_sk] Re: Aktualizace: Tags for Czech/Slovak address system
Hello, I think it's important to add both tagging@ and talk-cz@ to the loop, as this question needs more serious consensus, in my opinion. I've left the original message below, just in case anyone wants to translate it from Czech directly. In short, Dalibor proposes to use addr:place and addr:borough as a more featureful replacement of addr:suburb, which I think is not very justified and is against common practices elsewhere. His proposed scheme is: addr:conscriptionnumber=220 addr:housenumber=220 addr:street=K úvozu ref:ruian:addr=28413113 addr:place=Lochkov část obce addr:borough=Praha-Lochkov městská část addr:city=Praha addr:postcode=15400 addr:country=CZ source:addr=cuzk:ruian The Czech term ‘část obce’ here, in my opinion, exactly matches what is ‘a distinct section of an urban settlement (city, town, etc.) with its own name and identity, e.g. annexed towns or villages which were formerly independent’, which is a definition of a suburb. However, addr:place is commonly used to define a part of address which has usage similar to the street part, but isn't related to the street. Speaking of addr:borough, the only difference I see between the proposed usage of it and what would be otherwise addr:suburb is that the official name of a municipal district may be not the same as the name of a locality. Dalibor, please correct me if I'm wrong. I wonder, do we really need to introduce new tags now and redefine the meaning of old tags, or maybe we can fit this into the existing model somehow? I think that maybe it's enough to have the districts and boroughs as properly tagged boundaries, and to have addr:suburb set the the official name of a municipal district, what do you think? Anyway, I'd like to also hear the opinion of non-Czech or non-Slovak members. On Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Dalibor Jelínek chrab...@gmail.com wrote: Ahoj, dovolte mi přispět do diskuse a objasnit naše stanoviska. Předně ono je to o hodně složitější. Fakt. Zejména Praha. Viz http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8C%C3%A1sti_Prahy Ale od začátku: addr:place jsme začali používat a úspěšně používáme pro malé obce a části obcí (tady je třeba říct, že část obce je termín z registru RÚIAN a znamená v lidských termínech prostě malá vesnice, co nemá místní úřad a patří pod jinou obec), kde nejsou pojmenované všechny ulice. Před nějakou dobou totiž začal Nominatim úspěšně hledat podle addr:place, když nenašel nic podle addr:street. Takže běžné adresy do malých vesnic jako je Libív 5 najednou šly najít, pokud měly addr:place. Teď se snažíme doplnit všechny adresy podle RÚIAN a tam používáme addr:place i ve městech, kde jsou používané ulice. A nevidíme žádný problém, protože addr:street máme pořád a navíc jméno části obce, což je ve městě rovno (podle nás i podle RÚIAN městké čtvrti). Jako bonus je, že se dá najít i dům podle čtvrti a čísla popisného, což je informace, která je uvedena v katastru. Jenže nad tím je ten zmatek s většími městskými částmi. Praha je sice extrém, ale ostatní statutární města jsou taky nic moc. Naštěstí v RÚIAN je to o maličko jednodušší: Tady je jedno pražské adresní místo: http://vdp.cuzk.cz/vdp/ruian/adresnimista/28413113 Do OSM ho přepíšeme: addr:conscriptionnumber=220 addr:housenumber=220 addr:street=K úvozu ref:ruian:addr=28413113 addr:place=Lochkov část obce addr:borough=Praha-Lochkov městská část addr:city=Praha addr:postcode=15400 addr:country=CZ source:addr=cuzk:ruian Rovnou upozorňuju, že neplatí, že by takhle podobné byly addr:place a addr:borough všude. Tahle adresa ale má ještě další vyšší celky (dle RÚIAN) správní obvod - Praha 16 městský obvod - Praha 5 A tady asi nastupuje addr:suburb, který by mohl mýt jedním z těch obvodů, ale spíše bychom potřebovali dva. Mohli bychom použít district, ale ten máme už využit jako okres a ani jeden z těch obvodů není okres. Borough je definován tady http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place a vůbec nám nevadí, že zatím není addr:borough, to můžeme později dopsat a adresní tagy většinou vznikají jako dvojčata addr:něco a place=něco. Navíc použití suburb v OSM je prostě blbě. Suburb je periferie, předměstí. Že ho OSM poutíbá ve významu městského obvodu, části je sice možné, ale my se nechceme přidávat k špatnému používání anglických slov. Mohli bychom použít quarter místo place. To by bylo asi logické, jenže ne z pohledu RÍUAN, kde place je část obce, což znamená malou ves na venkově a čtvrť ve městě. To bychom si v tom pak udělali pěkný hokej. neighbourhood už je zase moc malé. Takže nám prostě vyšel place=borough a addr:borough jako lepší než subrub. Zdraví, Dalibor On Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:55:41 PM UTC+1, Marián Kyral wrote: Ahoj, na Talk-cz mometálně probíhá příprava na import/aktualizaci adres z RÚIAN - http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registr_%C3%BAzemn%C3%AD_identifikace,_adres_a_nemovitost%C3%AD Dohodli jsme
Re: [Tagging] [osm_sk] Re: Aktualizace: Tags for Czech/Slovak address system
Hello, 2014-03-10 12:01 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com: Just a quick reminder, the term borough has several meanings and could easily be misused. In Alaska, where I'm from, boroughs are large administrative areas — very similar to counties in the contiguous United States. So they are districts, in a sense, but perhaps not in the way intended in your example. Which is exactly my point. The proposed scheme misuses some tags (addr:place), adds new tags duplicating already existing (addr:borough instead of addr:suburb) and adds more ambiguity by using the term borough which may mean things different from municipal districts, so I'm for reworking this scheme, but there are people who disagree with me. That's why I brought the topic here for more discussion. -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
