Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Johannes Singler]

Am 15.08.2018 um 11:35 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:



sent from a phone


On 15. Aug 2018, at 07:43, Johannes Singler 
wrote:

I'm just saying there is no absolutely blatant one-to-one
correlation addr:street<->highway



I would say there is, and in the other cases, addr:street is not the
right key to put the address component. Use addr:place for the
defined cases and addr:full for the rest. 


In a city like Basel, all addresses consistently have an street name and 
a house number (and there is a consistent list of all of them).
IMHO it does not make sense to tag them differently depending on what 
feature they reference (the reference is even just by name, not even by 
ID, so there might be even multiple features named like that).


Well, maybe I should just augment the squares with pedestrian streets, 
and give the street name also to the footpath in that park, that would 
solve the problems as well.


Johannes

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Aug 2018, at 10:57, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> 
> So how would you tag these distance-based numbers in OSM without using 
> addr:full?


you can’t, or you would have to introduce a new tag. Are they „housenumbers“? 
If they are not, you should not use the tag.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:45 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> I know in the US there are distance based housenumbers, and also in Rome
> there is one single street which has distance based numbering, still the
> vast majority of distance based address indications around here are _not_
> housenumbers.
>

So how would you tag these distance-based numbers in OSM without using
addr:full? addr:housenumber seems to me to be the best fit and without
needing to introduce yet another tag. I have certainly used
addr:housenumber to tag these types of numbers in my country and I am glad
to read that people in other countries think the same, which makes me think
that, while this is not 100% logically correct, it makes sense, in a way.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Aug 2018, at 03:05, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> In many communities in the US, all housenumbers are distance based,
> often from a central chaining origin. They are indeed house numbers
> when appearing on a postal address: "13430 North Black Canyon Highway,


I know in the US there are distance based housenumbers, and also in Rome there 
is one single street which has distance based numbering, still the vast 
majority of distance based address indications around here are _not_ 
housenumbers.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:22 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 00:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>> E.g. km 15,350 is not an addr:housenumber either (used a lot in rural areas 
>> around here)
>
>> Why wouldn't that be a housenumber?
>
> because it is an approximate distance, not a number. Places with addresses 
> like this usually don’t have a housenumber.

In many communities in the US, all housenumbers are distance based,
often from a central chaining origin. They are indeed house numbers
when appearing on a postal address: "13430 North Black Canyon Highway,
Phoenix, Arizona" is 13.43 miles (yeah, I know, miles, benighted
Americans) north of Washington Street, or "4750 W. Peoria Avenue" is
4.75 miles west of Central Avenue.  The system goes out a long way,
some of the numbers are in the 40- and 50-thousands.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 16. Aug 2018, at 00:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

>> E.g. km 15,350 is not an addr:housenumber either (used a lot in rural areas 
>> around here)
> 
> Why wouldn't that be a housenumber? 


because it is an approximate distance, not a number. Places with addresses like 
this usually don’t have a housenumber.


cheers,
Martin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 15 August 2018 at 19:35, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> E.g. km 15,350 is not an addr:housenumber either (used a lot in rural
> areas around here)
>

Why wouldn't that be a housenumber?

Unless we're talking about different things?

I'm referring to "rural addresses" explained here:
https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/place-names/addresses

eg this place
https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0957971,153.2185025,3a,15y,165.25h,81.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s70C1uI-CChazsZPPe1-MnA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656,
which is 13.85 km along Beechmont Rd

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Aug 2018, at 07:43, Johannes Singler  wrote:
> 
> I'm just saying there is no absolutely blatant one-to-one correlation 
> addr:street<->highway


I would say there is, and in the other cases, addr:street is not the right key 
to put the address component. Use addr:place for the defined cases and 
addr:full for the rest.
E.g. km 15,350 is not an addr:housenumber either (used a lot in rural areas 
around here)

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Johannes Singler]

Hi Marc,

Am 15.08.2018 um 02:38 schrieb marc marc:

I din't understand your funny addr:park and so on...


I'm just saying there is no absolutely blatant one-to-one correlation 
addr:street<->highway



addr:street when it's the name of a highway
and addr:place when it's the name of a not-a-highway


Is this an established rule, or did you just come up with it?
The respective Wiki article
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:place
says something else:
"When using addr:place=*, make sure there is a matching place=* object 
of the same name."


Johannes


Le 14. 08. 18 à 17:27, Johannes Singler a écrit :

Hi

I understand that it is useful to use addr:place for neighborhoods,
hamlets, and isolated dwellings etc.  But here, it is a quite regular
street address, just that the referenced feature is not a highway, but a
square (we could limit it to place=square).  So why should this be ruled
out categorically?  It does not read addr:highway, does it?

I think OSM Inspector should check that there is *some* entity close by
that matches the street name, to avoid spelling mistakes etc.  In
another case, the street name actually references a park, e.g here


So should I reference that with addr:park?  Or map the park as a place,
or as a highway?  Rather not, eh?

So I propose to be more flexible here.  Too many "false positives" in
the QA tools are frustrating to the users, and shadow the real mistakes.

Regards
Johannes



Hi

I'd rather use addr:place="Square Name" in that case. In don't agree
that addr:place is 'intended for larger objects like "villages,
islands, territorial zones"'. I also use addr:place e.g. for
settlements (place=neighbourhood) or hamlets, if there is no street
with the addresses' name (example: [^1]).

[^1]:



Regards
Markus
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 21:05, Toggenburger Lukas
 wrote:


Hi

I'm the main author of the address view of Geofabrik's OSM inspector:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses , a QA tool for OSM,
whose sourcecode you can find at https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/

Some time ago I received the following issue and subsequent pull
request:

- https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/issues/111
- https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/pull/115

The submitter johsin18 proposes the following:

Given a (node|way) with addr:street=theName and a (node|way) with
place=square, name=theName, the first object should logically be tied
to the second. Correspondingly, osmi-addresses should recognize this
and not display it as an error as it is currently the case, e.g. at:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses=7.59448=47.54290=18=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way


osmi-addresses currently expects either
addr:street=* used in combination with highway=*, name=*
or
addr:place=* used in combination with place=*, name=*

Both myself and the current maintainer of osmi-addresses (=Nakaner)
are unsure if this proposed change would be appreciated by the larger
public or not. We are therefore seeking your opinion.

Best regards

Lukas

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[marc marc]

I din't understand your funny addr:park and so on...
addr:street when it's the name of a highway
and addr:place when it's the name of a not-a-highway
is not flexible and easy enought ?

Le 14. 08. 18 à 17:27, Johannes Singler a écrit :
> Hi
> 
> I understand that it is useful to use addr:place for neighborhoods, 
> hamlets, and isolated dwellings etc.  But here, it is a quite regular 
> street address, just that the referenced feature is not a highway, but a 
> square (we could limit it to place=square).  So why should this be ruled 
> out categorically?  It does not read addr:highway, does it?
> 
> I think OSM Inspector should check that there is *some* entity close by 
> that matches the street name, to avoid spelling mistakes etc.  In 
> another case, the street name actually references a park, e.g here
> 
>  
> 
> So should I reference that with addr:park?  Or map the park as a place, 
> or as a highway?  Rather not, eh?
> 
> So I propose to be more flexible here.  Too many "false positives" in 
> the QA tools are frustrating to the users, and shadow the real mistakes.
> 
> Regards
> Johannes
> 
> 
>> Hi
>>
>> I'd rather use addr:place="Square Name" in that case. In don't agree
>> that addr:place is 'intended for larger objects like "villages,
>> islands, territorial zones"'. I also use addr:place e.g. for
>> settlements (place=neighbourhood) or hamlets, if there is no street
>> with the addresses' name (example: [^1]).
>>
>> [^1]: 
>> 
>>  
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Markus
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 21:05, Toggenburger Lukas
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I'm the main author of the address view of Geofabrik's OSM inspector: 
>>> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses , a QA tool for OSM, 
>>> whose sourcecode you can find at https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/
>>>
>>> Some time ago I received the following issue and subsequent pull 
>>> request:
>>>
>>> - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/issues/111
>>> - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/pull/115
>>>
>>> The submitter johsin18 proposes the following:
>>>
>>> Given a (node|way) with addr:street=theName and a (node|way) with 
>>> place=square, name=theName, the first object should logically be tied 
>>> to the second. Correspondingly, osmi-addresses should recognize this 
>>> and not display it as an error as it is currently the case, e.g. at: 
>>> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses=7.59448=47.54290=18=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> osmi-addresses currently expects either
>>> addr:street=* used in combination with highway=*, name=*
>>> or
>>> addr:place=* used in combination with place=*, name=*
>>>
>>> Both myself and the current maintainer of osmi-addresses (=Nakaner) 
>>> are unsure if this proposed change would be appreciated by the larger 
>>> public or not. We are therefore seeking your opinion.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Lukas
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Johannes Singler]

Hi

I understand that it is useful to use addr:place for neighborhoods, 
hamlets, and isolated dwellings etc.  But here, it is a quite regular 
street address, just that the referenced feature is not a highway, but a 
square (we could limit it to place=square).  So why should this be ruled 
out categorically?  It does not read addr:highway, does it?


I think OSM Inspector should check that there is *some* entity close by 
that matches the street name, to avoid spelling mistakes etc.  In 
another case, the street name actually references a park, e.g here


So should I reference that with addr:park?  Or map the park as a place, 
or as a highway?  Rather not, eh?


So I propose to be more flexible here.  Too many "false positives" in 
the QA tools are frustrating to the users, and shadow the real mistakes.


Regards
Johannes



Hi

I'd rather use addr:place="Square Name" in that case. In don't agree
that addr:place is 'intended for larger objects like "villages,
islands, territorial zones"'. I also use addr:place e.g. for
settlements (place=neighbourhood) or hamlets, if there is no street
with the addresses' name (example: [^1]).

[^1]: 


Regards
Markus
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 21:05, Toggenburger Lukas
 wrote:


Hi

I'm the main author of the address view of Geofabrik's OSM inspector: 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses , a QA tool for OSM, whose 
sourcecode you can find at https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/

Some time ago I received the following issue and subsequent pull request:

- https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/issues/111
- https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/pull/115

The submitter johsin18 proposes the following:

Given a (node|way) with addr:street=theName and a (node|way) with place=square, name=theName, 
the first object should logically be tied to the second. Correspondingly, osmi-addresses should 
recognize this and not display it as an error as it is currently the case, e.g. at: 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses=7.59448=47.54290=18=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way

osmi-addresses currently expects either
addr:street=* used in combination with highway=*, name=*
or
addr:place=* used in combination with place=*, name=*

Both myself and the current maintainer of osmi-addresses (=Nakaner) are unsure 
if this proposed change would be appreciated by the larger public or not. We 
are therefore seeking your opinion.

Best regards

Lukas

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hi

I'd rather use addr:place="Square Name" in that case. In don't agree
that addr:place is 'intended for larger objects like "villages,
islands, territorial zones"'. I also use addr:place e.g. for
settlements (place=neighbourhood) or hamlets, if there is no street
with the addresses' name (example: [^1]).

[^1]: 


Regards
Markus
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 21:05, Toggenburger Lukas
 wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I'm the main author of the address view of Geofabrik's OSM inspector: 
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses , a QA tool for OSM, whose 
> sourcecode you can find at https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/
>
> Some time ago I received the following issue and subsequent pull request:
>
> - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/issues/111
> - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/pull/115
>
> The submitter johsin18 proposes the following:
>
> Given a (node|way) with addr:street=theName and a (node|way) with 
> place=square, name=theName, the first object should logically be tied to the 
> second. Correspondingly, osmi-addresses should recognize this and not display 
> it as an error as it is currently the case, e.g. at: 
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses=7.59448=47.54290=18=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way
>
> osmi-addresses currently expects either
> addr:street=* used in combination with highway=*, name=*
> or
> addr:place=* used in combination with place=*, name=*
>
> Both myself and the current maintainer of osmi-addresses (=Nakaner) are 
> unsure if this proposed change would be appreciated by the larger public or 
> not. We are therefore seeking your opinion.
>
> Best regards
>
> Lukas
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Toggenburger Lukas]

Hi

I'm the main author of the address view of Geofabrik's OSM inspector: 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses , a QA tool for OSM, whose 
sourcecode you can find at https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/ 

Some time ago I received the following issue and subsequent pull request:

- https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/issues/111
- https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/pull/115

The submitter johsin18 proposes the following:

Given a (node|way) with addr:street=theName and a (node|way) with place=square, 
name=theName, the first object should logically be tied to the second. 
Correspondingly, osmi-addresses should recognize this and not display it as an 
error as it is currently the case, e.g. at: 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses=7.59448=47.54290=18=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way

osmi-addresses currently expects either
addr:street=* used in combination with highway=*, name=*
or 
addr:place=* used in combination with place=*, name=*

Both myself and the current maintainer of osmi-addresses (=Nakaner) are unsure 
if this proposed change would be appreciated by the larger public or not. We 
are therefore seeking your opinion.

Best regards

Lukas

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging