Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
Would not the problem with describing the position on the object be that you could still not find the reference object and thus it would be completely useless? If you have a location description referenced from big tree you need to find the big tree. There are multiple ways to get to the location from the reference point - one address can be north from big tree and south from small tree at the same time. We are used to take addresses as absolute positions, but this does not seem to be the case. You have absolute positions of reference points (should be in the map) and then use relative directions to get to the location - this is not an address and should not be tagged as one. Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) Dne 30. března 2012 10:11 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com napsal(a): What about the established tag addr:full? This was intended for cases like this. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
Right. So I just moved to proposal to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reference_point The comments from Erik Johansson I posted on the previous proposal wiki page in order to not forget them in the future. As Lukáš explained I agree and as a first step i give priority to have just the reference points being markable as such. On 04/04/2012 09:15 AM, LM_1 wrote: Would not the problem with describing the position on the object be that you could still not find the reference object and thus it would be completely useless? If you have a location description referenced from big tree you need to find the big tree. There are multiple ways to get to the location from the reference point - one address can be north from big tree and south from small tree at the same time. We are used to take addresses as absolute positions, but this does not seem to be the case. You have absolute positions of reference points (should be in the map) and then use relative directions to get to the location - this is not an address and should not be tagged as one. Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) Dne 30. března 2012 10:11 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com napsal(a): What about the established tag addr:full? This was intended for cases like this. cheers, Martin On 03/30/2012 01:50 AM, Erik Johansson wrote: I see why you would want to tag addr:reference_point=yes instead. Felix do you have any examples from real life? I think you should start collecting them, and please use Spanish since that is what the addresses are written in... Here are a some examples from real life: Example with a usual reference point: Nicaragua Guest House Bello Horizonte VI Etapa 217 Rotonda de la Virgen 2 cuadras al sur 2 1/2 abajo/west Managua, Nicaragua Example with a reference point, which usually would not be on a map: Ferretería Blandón Moreno Barrio Santa Ana. Del Arbolito 1 1/2 cuadra al norte (al lago) Managua, Nicaragua Example with reference point from the past: Colegio Filimon Ribera Reparto Schick De donde fue el Cine Ideal una cuadra arriba Managua, Nicaragua (Where Cine Ideal today is a Pizzeria) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
2012/3/27 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: I will make my point clearer. It isn´t the houses with adresses that will be tagged, it is the Reference_point itself. Indeed in the current scheme of things, addr:reference_point=* should be part of the node where the adress is, in the same way that the very similar addr:postcode=* tag. I understand if Felix doesn't want to do this since it's micromapping. You would need to tag lots of: addr:managua=Donde fue el pequeño árbol, un bloque de casas hacia el Lago, y 25 pas hacia arriba addr:reference_point=Donde fue el pequeño árbol addr:managua_1=un bloque de casas hacia el Lago addr:managua_2=25 pas hacia arriba Where: hacia el Lago=North hacia arriba=East hacia abajo= West hacia el Sur=South In the same way we tag: addr:housenumber=42 addr:street=Lake Street addr:postcode=118 52 I see why you would want to tag addr:reference_point=yes instead. Felix do you have any examples from real life? I think you should start collecting them, and please use Spanish since that is what the addresses are written in... Regards Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
What about the established tag addr:full? This was intended for cases like this. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
I will make my point clearer. It isn´t the houses with adresses that will be tagged, it is the Reference_point itself. A street with 20 houses. *The street: highway=residential and name=Big_Street *The twenty houses have each addr:housenumber=1..20 and addr:street=Big_Street An area with 20 houses using Big_Tree as reference point. *The reference_point: reference_point=yes and name=Big_Tree *The twenty houses are not covered by the proposal I wanted to show that a reference_point is to be compared with the name of a strett. addr: then relates to that street, it soen´t tag the street itself. p.s. If one would reuse the addr: scheme for the houses: addr:meter=10..200 addr:ref_point=Big_Tree d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
Felix Delattre linux@... writes: I started working on a draft for a proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:reference_point Please help me! This is an important thing to map. I have been looking at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses and it seems that the key addr: is used on each and every single address. an example, the addr:street isn´t used on the street but on the surrounding buildings that uses that street in their adress. with a similar approach, addr:reference_point would be used on all houses having the railway station as a reference. My conclusion is that you should not use addr: for this tag. I suggest to use only reference_point=yes or reference_point=address. Maybe there are other uses for reference_points, what first comes into mind are the survey points: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made% 3Dsurvey_point ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
On 26/03/12 22:25, Johan Jönsson wrote: Felix Delattre linux@... writes: I started working on a draft for a proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:reference_point Please help me! This is an important thing to map. +1 I have been looking at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses and it seems that the key addr: is used on each and every single address. an example, the addr:street isn´t used on the street but on the surrounding buildings that uses that street in their adress. with a similar approach, addr:reference_point would be used on all houses having the railway station as a reference. We have already to relation types (street [1] and associatedStreet [2]). Why not adapt/extend/rework them ? My conclusion is that you should not use addr: for this tag. I suggest to use only reference_point=yes or reference_point=address. -1 it fits well under addr:* [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:street [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Felix Delattre li...@delattre.de wrote: My request is that I would like to start a discussion about the the tags landmark [1] and reference_point [2]. No idea about reference_point but a new landmark category is not a good one since we can already use the existing man_made, leisure, building or amenity keys. And your example about from where the Cinema was before is a bit a problem if we don't see any evidence on the ground (like old signs but afain we don't have tags yet for that). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
On 3/20/2012 6:52 PM, Felix Delattre wrote: In Central America describing addresses work differently than in northern countries. As there are often times no street names and people are used to describe the addresses with reference points. Only in some residential areas they use letter and numbers for sectors and houses. For example a valid addresses could be: * From the old church in Santa Ana, 400 meters east. * From secondary school Carlos Blass, half a block to the south. * From where the Cinema Cabrera was before, 2 blocks south and 20 meters east. What would you use these addresses for? Do you write this on a letter you're mailing? Or is it just something that you might expect as output from a person or router, and thus any landmarks can be used? I ask because this sort of description is used everywhere. One might say at the end of the road, past Sand Lake Elementary School rather than 8249 Buena Vista Woods Boulevard, but that doesn't make the former any kind of real address. It's simply a spatial description that can be seen by looking at the map. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I ask because this sort of description is used everywhere. One might say at the end of the road, past Sand Lake Elementary School rather than 8249 Buena Vista Woods Boulevard, but that doesn't make the former any kind of real address. It's simply a spatial description that can be seen by looking at the map. I seem to recall having read either the articles Felix posted, or similar ones. The point is, in some countries, these informal descriptions actually *are* genuine addresses. There's no other addressing system in place, so over time they become the de facto standard. So what I think Felix is suggesting is being able to define the reference points that addresses are constructed from, in exactly the same way as we define name=* for a highway=*, or for a place=*. I think it's worthy of discussion get this right. landmark=* is problematic because as noted there actually may not be a landmark (like the little tree which is actually not visible). Some kind of addr:reference_point=*? Or maybe a kind of place=*? The harder question is if you want to try and define actual addresses, like actually putting a unique address description on each dwelling (From the church, 400m south, From the church, 380m south with the blue door). But maybe leave that harder question till later :) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
On 3/21/2012 9:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: The harder question is if you want to try and define actual addresses, like actually putting a unique address description on each dwelling (From the church, 400m south, From the church, 380m south with the blue door). But maybe leave that harder question till later :) This is where I get confused. Is the address created like this actually unique, or are there any number of descriptions that are equally valid? (Aside: I'm reminded of metes and bounds descriptions of property: begin at the stake in the old tree at the northeast corner of Bill's property, run south 59 degrees east for 600 chains for the point of beginning, then run by the following courses... Here of course there are many possible starting points and ways to describe the route to the point of beginning.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
On 03/21/2012 07:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: I seem to recall having read either the articles Felix posted, or similar ones. The point is, in some countries, these informal descriptions actually *are* genuine addresses. There's no other addressing system in place, so over time they become the de facto standard. So what I think Felix is suggesting is being able to define the reference points that addresses are constructed from, in exactly the same way as we define name=* for a highway=*, or for a place=*. I think it's worthy of discussion get this right. landmark=* is problematic because as noted there actually may not be a landmark (like the little tree which is actually not visible). Some kind of addr:reference_point=*? Or maybe a kind of place=*? This is exactly the point what I wanted to touch and consult how we can define the best generic way. Then documenting it and putting into practice in these countries. I would like to recap: * The tag landmark is not suitable for all possible reference points * A new tag would be a good option addr:reference_point=* or reference_point=* What could be the right values? true, yes, popular, confirmed,...? Any ideas? On 03/21/2012 08:38 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 3/21/2012 9:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: The harder question is if you want to try and define actual addresses, like actually putting a unique address description on each dwelling (From the church, 400m south, From the church, 380m south with the blue door). But maybe leave that harder question till later :) This is where I get confused. Is the address created like this actually unique, or are there any number of descriptions that are equally valid? (Aside: I'm reminded of metes and bounds descriptions of property: begin at the stake in the old tree at the northeast corner of Bill's property, run south 59 degrees east for 600 chains for the point of beginning, then run by the following courses... Here of course there are many possible starting points and ways to describe the route to the point of beginning.) This goes way to far and, in my opinion, is too complex for considering it for mapping. I don't think it is necessary (or even possible) to use exact addresses. Having at least reference points marked in a way computers can process them would be a big improvement. Let's stick to that. Thank you for all your responses. Felix ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
On 21 March 2012 20:22, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: And your example about from where the Cinema was before is a bit a problem if we don't see any evidence on the ground (like old signs but afain we don't have tags yet for that). This is exactly the kind of problem we have with neighbourhoods as discussed here a few months ago. There may be no official standing or signs of any type that you can point to on the ground, but the majority of local people still know what you mean and use the term. I think if we want to put these kind of items in the data (and I think they may be quite useful) then verifiability might mean eight out of ten locals can tell you where it is. But I do think we need a tag that clearly shows it as a search location, not necessarily to be shown on maps by renderers. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
Hello, First of all: I'm not a deeply involved into OSM, just a small and sporadic contributer and I want to apologize in case I'm asking stupid questions. My request is that I would like to start a discussion about the the tags landmark [1] and reference_point [2]. But first of all, a little explanation: In Central America describing addresses work differently than in northern countries. As there are often times no street names and people are used to describe the addresses with reference points. Only in some residential areas they use letter and numbers for sectors and houses. For example a valid addresses could be: * From the old church in Santa Ana, 400 meters east. * From secondary school Carlos Blass, half a block to the south. * From where the Cinema Cabrera was before, 2 blocks south and 20 meters east. Reference points can practically be everything, even old ones that don't exist anymore [3], or something which usually would not be marked on a map, but has become popular, like f.e. the little tree [4]. You can see this get's a bit complicated :-) I love using OSM on my little car navigation device, but in order to get the address search working properly in this cultural context Ben Konrath, who prepares the map of Central America for Nuvi devices, started using a tag reference_point=yes in order to enable them in the POI search. But there is the landmark key as well, but, as I understand, it works more as a description to landmarks and not marking them as one. Am I right about this? So, what would be the right way for us to tag the landmarks/reference_point? Would it be a good idea to make reference_point an official tag? What can I do to make it better? (I guess, updating the wiki about the findings of this discussion) Anyway finding the right and standard way to achieve this would help us all to get broader acceptance. And on the long run it is the only way to get the address search working properly in these countries, where by the way, OpenStreetMap has a lot of potential since good commercial maps are not available. Cheers, Felix Delattre [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landmark [2] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/reference_point [3] In Managua, capital of Nicaragua, especially we use mostly reference points from the time before the earthquake in 1972 when the whole city crashed down. [4] In fact, Managua's best-known landmark, the Little Tree, grew until it was quite a big tree, was cut down and then replanted. Through it all, from the Little Tree . . . remained the first phrase in scores of Managuan addresses. From http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/01/news/mn-62534/2 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
