Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
On 22.07.2013 04:21, Clifford Snow wrote: On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at mailto:b...@volki.at wrote: When a shop changes, it is true that the address is more permanent. Just like the coordinates are more permanent. But we won't necessarily keep them in OSM if there's no shop anymore. As this is unusual, let's habe a look at doctors instead. A doctor may have his practice in the 3rd floor, door number 27. When he retires, he (or someone else) may use that apartment for living. It's no POI anymore. It just becomes an ordinary flat like the 50 other flats in the house. Keeping the naked address with floor and door number would be completely useless. Of course, we wish to keep the address of the whole house, but there we are at attibutes again. I'm in favor of keeping addresses on vacant lots. Vacant lots often get rebuilt. I agree that addresses of vacant lots (parcels) should be retained in OSM. This is different to my example above. In the US cities I've lived, the address remains the same. Of course there are exceptions, for example, if the original building was on a corner lot and the new building had it main entranced moved to the other street, the building would most likely get a new number. Well, that's a case for multipe addresses, see my proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
Am 22.07.2013 06:53, schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: I'm in favor of keeping addresses on vacant lots. Vacant lots often get rebuilt It would be nice if we had an option to retain the address node. JOSM is easier, just delete the unwanted tags. I haven't figured out an easy method of converting a polygon to a node when the building is raised. To covert: copy the building's way, and paste tags onto the new node. You can reuse one of the building nodes, no need for a new node ! +1 for keeping. The major problem I have: The common tools do not take an address from a surrounding/parent polygon and use to it to get display the address. Even nominatum does not handle that right. I even had to move some shops in the past, as the moved to a new address. fly P.S.: I even had to move some shops in the past, as the moved to a new address. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: The major problem I have: The common tools do not take an address from a surrounding/parent polygon and use to it to get display the address. Even nominatum does not handle that right. This argument recalls the discussions about the is_in tag... The POI within a building polygon containing the address is just the next refinement after the street way within the municipality polygon. All common GIS software are able to do it. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
This argument recalls the discussions about the is_in tag... The POI within a building polygon containing the address is just the next refinement after the street way within the municipality polygon. All common GIS software are able to do it. I agree. But it is really unsatisfactory that even nominatim does not support such a feature. Does this mean we gonna have to put the address information on the POI-node twice? cracklinrain ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: Adresses are attributes of physical objects, e.g. a parcel, a house, or a part of a house. Parcels can be merged and deleted, houses can be replaced, shops/restaurants/POI's may change at any time but the addresses remain. It is more permanent as a simple 'attribute' than all the 'features' you mention. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
On 21/lug/2013, at 14:06, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Parcels can be merged and deleted, houses can be replaced, shops/restaurants/POI's may change at any time but the addresses remain this might depend on the region you look at. Houses that are replaced usually keep the number in areas I know of (but this is really not the same worldwide, indeed the way housenumbers are assigned is even different in different German regions, sometimes it's a building, sometimes it's a plot) Btw: from what I know, parcels (especially in built up areas in Europe) used to be quite stable over the time, more stable than countries and political borders. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
On 21.07.2013 14:06, Pieren wrote: Parcels can be merged and deleted, houses can be replaced, shops/restaurants/POI's may change at any time but the addresses remain. It is more permanent as a simple 'attribute' than all the 'features' you mention. When a parcel is deleted, the address gets invalid. Where should the postman deliver the mail if the parcel does not exist any more? At least here in Austria there are simple rules handling all of these changes: When two parcels (e.g. numbers 1 and 3) are merged, the new parcel gets a range (1-3) as housenumber. When a parcel is split, a letter is appended (e.g. 1a). When a shop changes, it is true that the address is more permanent. Just like the coordinates are more permanent. But we won't necessarily keep them in OSM if there's no shop anymore. As this is unusual, let's habe a look at doctors instead. A doctor may have his practice in the 3rd floor, door number 27. When he retires, he (or someone else) may use that apartment for living. It's no POI anymore. It just becomes an ordinary flat like the 50 other flats in the house. Keeping the naked address with floor and door number would be completely useless. Of course, we wish to keep the address of the whole house, but there we are at attibutes again. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: When a shop changes, it is true that the address is more permanent. Just like the coordinates are more permanent. But we won't necessarily keep them in OSM if there's no shop anymore. As this is unusual, let's habe a look at doctors instead. A doctor may have his practice in the 3rd floor, door number 27. When he retires, he (or someone else) may use that apartment for living. It's no POI anymore. It just becomes an ordinary flat like the 50 other flats in the house. Keeping the naked address with floor and door number would be completely useless. Of course, we wish to keep the address of the whole house, but there we are at attibutes again. I'm in favor of keeping addresses on vacant lots. Vacant lots often get rebuilt. In the US cities I've lived, the address remains the same. Of course there are exceptions, for example, if the original building was on a corner lot and the new building had it main entranced moved to the other street, the building would most likely get a new number. Right now we do have a little problem retaining address information on nodes. If an amenity included the address (which it should IMHO) and the amenity is no longer valid, it is too easy to just to delete the entire node. The delete action requires adding back in the perfectly valid address information that was deleted when a new poi is entered. It would be nice if we had an option to retain the address node. JOSM is easier, just delete the unwanted tags. I haven't figured out an easy method of converting a polygon to a node when the building is raised. -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.uswrote: I'm in favor of keeping addresses on vacant lots. Vacant lots often get rebuilt It would be nice if we had an option to retain the address node. JOSM is easier, just delete the unwanted tags. I haven't figured out an easy method of converting a polygon to a node when the building is raised. To covert: copy the building's way, and paste tags onto the new node. -- Note: In the USA at least: vacant lots have addresses. Since we can't depend on a mapper coming back to notice new construction in a timely manner, the address should stay. Addresses can be seen as attributes of a parcel, where the owner gets to further refine (by making an entrance and/or a postbox). Addresses could ALSO be viewed as attributes of, or at least associated with, ways: *addr:housenumber=5123123* *addr:street=http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/100/http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/100/history * Which would be a lot more tightly coupled than: *addr:housenumber=5123123* *addr:street=Kempson Avenue* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
On 19 July 2013 18:42, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Forking the discussion from Double and misfitting house numbers On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Not for me. I think the address is a feature by ifself, not an attribute of other features (like 'name'). I want to know what do people think about addresses. 1. Are addresses features as Pieren suggests? Thus addresses should be mapped separately or at least tagged singularly on the primary object that represents the address. 2. Or are addresses attributes (like names) of POIs, buildings, and the like? In which case, it would be OK if many POIs are mapped with the same addr:housenumbers. In my opinion addresses are independent map features in their own right. Please have a look at this proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature on how one can associate the same address node with multiple POIs. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
On 19.07.2013 18:42, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: I want to know what do people think about addresses. 1. Are addresses features as Pieren suggests? Thus addresses should be mapped separately or at least tagged singularly on the primary object that represents the address. 2. Or are addresses attributes (like names) of POIs, buildings, and the like? In which case, it would be OK if many POIs are mapped with the same addr:housenumbers. Adresses are attributes of physical objects, e.g. a parcel, a house, or a part of a house. The only exception I know are PO boxes which may not be attributes of physical objects, but attributes of organisations. There are no addresses for their own sake, because they wouldn't make any sense. They are just pipe dreams. Nobody will ever find a real-world example. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
On 19.07.2013 19:43, Elliott Plack wrote: For example: a vacant lot often has an address, but there doesn't need to be a building there. In this case, the address is an attribute of the parcel, the piece of land. It's an attribute anyway. Also some shopping centers have multiple addresses for the same building, so we make address points for each entrance or centroid. Multiple addresses are just multiple attributes, so what? It's the same with multiple names. See my proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses for how I think that multiple adresses on the same object should be mapped. If you tag each address on an entrance, this makes the address an attribute of that entrance. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
On 19.07.2013 19:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: they are both. If you investigated the situation and you are sure that you can provide a good estimate for a polygon describing an address I'd say that's preferable and you don't have to add address duplicates to all features inside this polygon, but mappers should also enter addresses on nodes when they are not able or willing to investigate further to get this polygon. In this case also 2 and more POIs sharing the same address should each get their own set. I agree with that, except for the first sentence. Mapping an address as a standalone node is better than not mapping it at all, but that does not make it a feature. It's just like creating a node with name=* and nothing else. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
Forking the discussion from Double and misfitting house numbers On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Not for me. I think the address is a feature by ifself, not an attribute of other features (like 'name'). I want to know what do people think about addresses. 1. Are addresses features as Pieren suggests? Thus addresses should be mapped separately or at least tagged singularly on the primary object that represents the address. 2. Or are addresses attributes (like names) of POIs, buildings, and the like? In which case, it would be OK if many POIs are mapped with the same addr:housenumbers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
2013/7/19 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com 1. Are addresses features as Pieren suggests? Thus addresses should be mapped separately or at least tagged singularly on the primary object that represents the address. 2. Or are addresses attributes (like names) of POIs, buildings, and the like? In which case, it would be OK if many POIs are mapped with the same addr:housenumbers. they are both. If you investigated the situation and you are sure that you can provide a good estimate for a polygon describing an address I'd say that's preferable and you don't have to add address duplicates to all features inside this polygon, but mappers should also enter addresses on nodes when they are not able or willing to investigate further to get this polygon. In this case also 2 and more POIs sharing the same address should each get their own set. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
I like the address as a feature approach because not all addressed 'things' exist, and 'things' can have many addresses. That's how we deal with addresses in my gov's GIS. For example: a vacant lot often has an address, but there doesn't need to be a building there. Also some shopping centers have multiple addresses for the same building, so we make address points for each entrance or centroid. — Elliott Plack Sent from Mailbox on iPhone 5 about.me/elliottp On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Forking the discussion from Double and misfitting house numbers On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Not for me. I think the address is a feature by ifself, not an attribute of other features (like 'name'). I want to know what do people think about addresses. 1. Are addresses features as Pieren suggests? Thus addresses should be mapped separately or at least tagged singularly on the primary object that represents the address. 2. Or are addresses attributes (like names) of POIs, buildings, and the like? In which case, it would be OK if many POIs are mapped with the same addr:housenumbers.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
2013/7/19 Elliott Plack elliott.pl...@gmail.com For example: a vacant lot often has an address, but there doesn't need to be a building there. Also some shopping centers have multiple addresses for the same building, so we make address points for each entrance or centroid. yes, this is both because addresses are attributes of lots and entrances: the shopping centers have multiple addresses because they have multiple entrances and occupy multiple lots. ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?
Sometimes a lot's address (for tax purposes) is different from the building address (which may be driven by a desire to be on a more 'popular' street name). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
