Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Saturday 01 September 2018, Johnparis wrote: > I would disagree with Christoph's assumption that addresses must be > unique. The purpose of an address is to help someone locate > something. Well - then everything in the OSM database is an address and noaddress=yes is universally a nonsense tag. Taking refuge in arbitrariness is a natural reaction to the complexity of the world but it ultimately does not solve any problems. If you don't agree that an address needs to be unique that is fine but so far i have not seen any other consistent concept of an address being presented that makes sense, somethings that helps someone to locate something does not cut it. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
I would disagree with Christoph's assumption that addresses must be unique.
The purpose of an address is to help someone locate something. It gets
"close enough", with the definition of that phrase varying by
locality/society/observer. ALL addresses, in that sense, are "partial", to
use Christoph's term.
Multiple objects may share an address. In fact, this has just been raised
in the context of cycleways (should they share the name of the street they
parallel?). Other examples have already been given in this thread (the red
shed). And the converse is also true: single objects may have multiple
addresses. Addresses can be many-to-one or one-to-many; a one-to-one
relationship is not required.
Back to the OP, I think the "no" prefix tags are problematic in general
(noaddress, noname). I personally like Martin's proposal of a "no_" prefix.
At least that's easier for data consumers to suss out. So I'd vote for
no_addr:housenumber=yes.
There is, in fact, an address in these cases, so "noaddress=yes" is wrong.
John
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 4:49 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/08/18 18:40, Rory McCann wrote:
> > On 22/08/18 23:40, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Rory McCann wrote:
> The single most important property of an address is that it is
> unique
> >>>
> >>> 35% of addresses in Ireland aren't unique.
> >>
> >> I strongly suspect we have a different understanding of either 'address'
> >> or 'uniqueness' here.
> >
> > Possibly. The Irish definition is "a property has the same address with
> > a least one other property". I'm not talking about 2 postboxes that are
> > beside each other in an apartment block, but 2 houses which could be a
> > distance apart. Post/Packages is delivered partially based on surname,
> > or "local knowledge" . It is/was a pain. The new postcode ("eircode")
> > will help. Now, you may say the surname is part of the address, but what
> > happens when someone moves house?
>
> The 'names' I refer to are the 'names' of the property, not the name of
> the resident/s.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
sent from a phone > On 1. Sep 2018, at 13:08, Gregory Marler wrote: > > Maybe the building is in use. Maybe it gets post, and billed for electricity, > local tax, etc. Most places it would need an address for that, but the > average mapper wouldn't know what it was and might not even know if it > does/doesn't use such services. this is a different issue, mappers not being able, or with great difficulty, to get to know the address. I was referring to places of which the “address” explicitly (often) states: no housenumber. E.g. https://www.osakasushiristorante.it/ (snc=no housenumber), it’s just an example, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of these, I guess. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
My personal perspective from the UK... In suburbs, people often don't have a visual house address. I guess the postman remembers or figures it out. I can usually guess too, and add a note to other mappers soo they can change it if I'm wrong: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Byc In rural areas it would be harder to guess. They may "not have an address", whatever that means, so I would map building=yes and move on without other tagging. Despite looking like a residence, it might be an outhouse (shed, barn, annex for visitors, etc) that only has existence in relation to a building that has an "address". Oh, but how would people refer to that without the address? Maybe... * It's the cottage behind Bill's house which is number 7. * Can you pop over to the red shed. * This is my woodland, up until the blue posts when the wood has the same name but is owned by someone else. * We're going to do some work on the old house, it's 1/2 a mile out of the village, I'll meet you there. * Type "some.pointless.words" into your phone and drive in a straight line over the roads and rivers. * Here's a link to it on osm.org. Maybe the building is in use. Maybe it gets post, and billed for electricity, local tax, etc. Most places it would need an address for that, but the average mapper wouldn't know what it was and might not even know if it does/doesn't use such services. Sometimes the address doesn't relate to the physical location (particularly with UK postcodes). For post and visiting you might get the name/department plus the address of the site sorting office or security/reception. The post sorting office might be a mile or more away, and the postal service might even give them letters that have thee real address/location on. Can we not leave it blank? A little dash of local knowledge or looking at the surrounding map should make it clear whether it's been surveyed (and lack-of number/name signs observed) or whether the area needs addresses mapped. Anyone who goes "oh that place is missing the address" can either edit the map or at least put in a map note with their knowledge. -- Gregory ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On 24/08/18 18:40, Rory McCann wrote:
On 22/08/18 23:40, Christoph Hormann wrote:
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Rory McCann wrote:
The single most important property of an address is that it is
unique
35% of addresses in Ireland aren't unique.
I strongly suspect we have a different understanding of either 'address'
or 'uniqueness' here.
Possibly. The Irish definition is "a property has the same address with
a least one other property". I'm not talking about 2 postboxes that are
beside each other in an apartment block, but 2 houses which could be a
distance apart. Post/Packages is delivered partially based on surname,
or "local knowledge" . It is/was a pain. The new postcode ("eircode")
will help. Now, you may say the surname is part of the address, but what
happens when someone moves house?
The 'names' I refer to are the 'names' of the property, not the name of
the resident/s.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Friday 24 August 2018, Rory McCann wrote:
> >>
> >> 35% of addresses in Ireland aren't unique.
> >
> > I strongly suspect we have a different understanding of either
> > 'address' or 'uniqueness' here.
>
> Possibly. The Irish definition is "a property has the same address
> with a least one other property". I'm not talking about 2 postboxes
> that are beside each other in an apartment block, but 2 houses which
> could be a distance apart. Post/Packages is delivered partially based
> on surname, or "local knowledge" . It is/was a pain. The new
> postcode ("eircode") will help. Now, you may say the surname is part
> of the address, but what happens when someone moves house? And we
> shouldn't put surnames into OSM. So the "address" isn't unique. I
> don't bring it up to disprove you or argue, just to point out that
> the world is weird.
Obviously there are large parts of the world without addresses and also
large parts with what you might call 'partial addresses'. But i would
see it from a practical point of view: If something you call an
address does not fulfill the main function of an address (to address a
specific place) it is something fundamentally different from what is
widely understood and tagged as an address. Therefore i think (but it
is obviously not up to me to decide that) that it would be better if in
OSM we'd distinguish between unique addresses and partial/non-unique
addresses. Therefore i still think in these cases tagging
noaddress=yes and documenting the associated street of a property or
any other partial address information in a different way might be a
better approach.
And i fully agree that this is weird because for a country like Ireland
it is obviously not a matter of the Irish society not having been able
to create a system of unique addresses. Still you have not done so for
a long time. This is quite remarkable. And it probably will get
weirder in the future - not so much because of this fashion of encoded
coordinate systems but because of digital technology increasingly
allowing dynamically connecting people with locations (and Amazon will
just send you your order to whereever you are - or where you are likely
to be when the order is shipped).
--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On 22/08/18 23:40, Christoph Hormann wrote:
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Rory McCann wrote:
The single most important property of an address is that it is
unique
35% of addresses in Ireland aren't unique.
I strongly suspect we have a different understanding of either 'address'
or 'uniqueness' here.
Possibly. The Irish definition is "a property has the same address with
a least one other property". I'm not talking about 2 postboxes that are
beside each other in an apartment block, but 2 houses which could be a
distance apart. Post/Packages is delivered partially based on surname,
or "local knowledge" . It is/was a pain. The new postcode ("eircode")
will help. Now, you may say the surname is part of the address, but what
happens when someone moves house? And we shouldn't put surnames into
OSM. So the "address" isn't unique. I don't bring it up to disprove you
or argue, just to point out that the world is weird.
--
Rory
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2018, at 04:48, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The royal 'we'? we, as the Italian community > > Address tags are added to buildings. not around here cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 02:16:02AM -0700, Mark Wagner wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 22:58:07 +0200 > Christoph Hormann wrote: > > > On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > > > Specifying addr:street on a building that does not have an address > > > > is either pointless or non-verifiable. > > > > > > But this happens here :-) > > > Sometimes they are big buildings/areas (which occupies a whole city > > > block, for example), with addr:street, addr:postcode but no > > > addr:housenumber > > > > You probably have to give a real world example since i have no idea > > if you want to say you have a building with a unique address > > consisting of addr:street and addr:postcode (could be if there is > > only one building at this street or with this postcode) or if you > > want to defend pointless or non-verifiable tagging of addr:street for > > buildings without a unique address. > > > > As a rather extreme first-world example, the address of > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/132723167 is: > > name=Grand Canyon North Rim Lodge > addr:city=North Rim > addr:state=AZ > > Not only does the building not have a house number, house name, or > other house identifier, the road it's on isn't named either. When > there's only one road in town, and that road only has one building that > receives mail, you don't need much in the way of identifiers. This is a rather common case of addressing. Please add addr:place=North Rim to indicate that this is a street-less address and what is the point of reference for the address. Kind regards Sarah ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On 23/08/18 10:16, Mark Wagner wrote: As a rather extreme first-world example, the address of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/132723167 is: name=Grand Canyon North Rim Lodge addr:city=North Rim addr:state=AZ Not only does the building not have a house number, house name, or other house identifier, the road it's on isn't named either. When there's only one road in town, and that road only has one building that receives mail, you don't need much in the way of identifiers. But I see nothing wrong with that. MANY places the name is also the building name ... I don't think anybody is saying there HAS to be a building number and if they are then THAT is the error. Many rural buildings simply have a name which in the case of the UK gets listed in the PAF file and I would simply expect 'Grand Canyon North Rim Lodge' to be the address if USPS had a similar postal address listing? I find the practice of adding ANY tag that does not enhance the data as pointless. There is no need to TAG that there is no number ... you just don't add the tag ... just as the example here ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Thursday 23 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > Ok, if the address is essentially "The airport on X-street" or "The > > government office on Y-street" then i think the type of feature is > > part of the address and this needs to be indicated in tagging > > somehow. And And I don't think the fact that there is no house > > number needs to be specifically indicated then. > > Take a look at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/BiJ please > (probably there are much more variants that people use than the ones > from this query) > > All these objects have some kind of "no housenumber" abbreviation at > addr:housenumber (which is exactly the same problem of using name="No > name"). Ok, these look primarily like the opposite of Roland's example in that: * it seems to be common practice to explicitly mention the lack of the house number when specifying the address. * the address is not unique without the name of the object in question, there are often multiple independent and unrelated features (like different shops in different buildings) with the same address. I would say that if you want to specify per object address tags here (which as indicated is somewhat questionable because the lack of uniqueness and in substance the only meaningful information you specify is the associated street) it is at least as important to indicate in tagging that the address to be unique needs to include the name - kind of like name_is_a_necessary_part_of_address=yes (not a serious suggestion in this form but you probably get the idea) as to explicitly indicate the lack of a house number. Also i kind of doubt if this form of specifying the lack of a house number is that common mappers would be inclined to give it up in favour of a different tagging scheme. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Thursday 23 August 2018, Roland Olbricht wrote: > > An example from Germany: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/526129541 > https://www.izb.fraunhofer.de/de/impressum.html > > The whole campus just fills up the complete street. Hence, the street > alone makes it already unique. I can confirm from having worked there > that it has indeed no housenumber. Yes, that looks like a good example for the first case. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 22:58:07 +0200 Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > > Specifying addr:street on a building that does not have an address > > > is either pointless or non-verifiable. > > > > But this happens here :-) > > Sometimes they are big buildings/areas (which occupies a whole city > > block, for example), with addr:street, addr:postcode but no > > addr:housenumber > > You probably have to give a real world example since i have no idea > if you want to say you have a building with a unique address > consisting of addr:street and addr:postcode (could be if there is > only one building at this street or with this postcode) or if you > want to defend pointless or non-verifiable tagging of addr:street for > buildings without a unique address. > As a rather extreme first-world example, the address of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/132723167 is: name=Grand Canyon North Rim Lodge addr:city=North Rim addr:state=AZ Not only does the building not have a house number, house name, or other house identifier, the road it's on isn't named either. When there's only one road in town, and that road only has one building that receives mail, you don't need much in the way of identifiers. -- Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
in Israel a boulding on a corner between 2 streets have 2 addreses, one for each street (or even 3 or more...). the local authority register the building just on one of the possible addresses for tax purposes but all of them are valid and usable. the more, each if them have a distinct 7digit zip code in italy, in some cities, each shop facing the street have a distinct house number from the building main entrace (i.e. building is 17 shops are 17/a 17/b.. and a shop spanning more windows could have more than one of them) in venice house numbers are unrelated to the street name but to the neghboorhood (sestriere). in some mountain community, detached houses (maso) sometimes didn't have a house number nor a street name and are referred just by the family name so, the address uniqueness is just a state of mind but we (all of us, i'm not a royal) need to find a way to represent them in a database, something very little flexible. stop arguing about uniqueness and start offering solutions. even it there will be duplicate addresses worls won't collapse. Mostra testo citato Hi Christoph, > You probably have to give a real world example since i have no idea if > you want to say you have a building with a unique address consisting of > addr:street and addr:postcode (could be if there is only one building > at this street or with this postcode) or if you want to defend > pointless or non-verifiable tagging of addr:street for buildings > without a unique address. An example from Germany: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/526129541 https://www.izb.fraunhofer.de/de/impressum.html The whole campus just fills up the complete street. Hence, the street alone makes it already unique. I can confirm from having worked there that it has indeed no housenumber. Best regards, Roland Mostra testo citato Il gio 23 ago 2018, 5:50 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > On 23/08/18 11:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > > > >> On 22. Aug 2018, at 22:28, Christoph Hormann wrote: > >> > >> Specifying addr:street on a building that does not have an address is > >> either pointless or non-verifiable. > > > > as I explained above, we don’t add address tags to buildings in general, > we add them to entrances and pois. > > The royal 'we'? > > Address tags are added to buildings. > Generally these building have no entrances in OSM. > Even where hte building has an entrance or two .. the building still > generally has the address. > > Where no building exists in OSM then addresses are generally nodes with no > other feature. > > That looks to be the practice around me. And it will probably continue to > be the practice. > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
Hi Christoph, You probably have to give a real world example since i have no idea if you want to say you have a building with a unique address consisting of addr:street and addr:postcode (could be if there is only one building at this street or with this postcode) or if you want to defend pointless or non-verifiable tagging of addr:street for buildings without a unique address. An example from Germany: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/526129541 https://www.izb.fraunhofer.de/de/impressum.html The whole campus just fills up the complete street. Hence, the street alone makes it already unique. I can confirm from having worked there that it has indeed no housenumber. Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On 23/08/18 11:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 22. Aug 2018, at 22:28, Christoph Hormann wrote: Specifying addr:street on a building that does not have an address is either pointless or non-verifiable. as I explained above, we don’t add address tags to buildings in general, we add them to entrances and pois. The royal 'we'? Address tags are added to buildings. Generally these building have no entrances in OSM. Even where hte building has an entrance or two .. the building still generally has the address. Where no building exists in OSM then addresses are generally nodes with no other feature. That looks to be the practice around me. And it will probably continue to be the practice. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > Ok, if the address is essentially "The airport on X-street" or "The > government office on Y-street" then i think the type of feature is part > of the address and this needs to be indicated in tagging somehow. And > And I don't think the fact that there is no house number needs to be > specifically indicated then. Take a look at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/BiJ please (probably there are much more variants that people use than the ones from this query) All these objects have some kind of "no housenumber" abbreviation at addr:housenumber (which is exactly the same problem of using name="No name"). The addresses here (in real life) all always explicit in saying that the place don't have a housenumber. We could simply remove all these values, but people will reinsert them and we will create doubt in our data (if the place doesn't really have a housenumber or if it's only missing in the data). If we choose to create/define some standardized way to say that a place doesn't really have a housenumber (in the same way we already do with noname), we could start fixing all these wrong addr:housenumber, say to people "please, use this to represent a place without a housenumber", do some kind of QA, etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On 23/08/18 09:18, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Thursday 23 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: Usually the places without a housenumber here have some kind of intrinsic distinctiveness/uniqueness. For example, an airport located in a road (there won't be 2 airports at the same road), some big industries/factories, an university campus, parks, places related to the government, etc. Ok, if the address is essentially "The airport on X-street" or "The government office on Y-street" then i think the type of feature is part of the address and this needs to be indicated in tagging somehow. And And I don't think the fact that there is no house number needs to be specifically indicated then. Usually that 'uniquess' is given by the name. The lack of a house number should be indicated so other mappers don't waste time looking for it. The indication of the lack of a house number may then be used by renders to include the name as part of the address, rather than duplicate the name entry as addr:name=. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2018, at 22:28, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Specifying addr:street on a building that does not have an address is > either pointless or non-verifiable. as I explained above, we don’t add address tags to buildings in general, we add them to entrances and pois. If there is no housenumber, the poi would state this usually in the address (snc), for example on websites, business cards, etc. They do have an address, even if it is not satisfying your expectations about the nature of addresses. You can send them a letter and it will likely arrive. There is no need for the fixation on buildings and uniqueness of addresses. In many typical apartment buildings you will have a lot of people all with the same address. That’s not very different from several offices having the same address (in this case I would argue the name (either person or business) is part of the address) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Thursday 23 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > Usually the places without a housenumber here have some kind of > intrinsic distinctiveness/uniqueness. > For example, an airport located in a road (there won't be 2 airports > at the same road), some big industries/factories, an university > campus, parks, places related to the government, etc. Ok, if the address is essentially "The airport on X-street" or "The government office on Y-street" then i think the type of feature is part of the address and this needs to be indicated in tagging somehow. And And I don't think the fact that there is no house number needs to be specifically indicated then. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I still don't know if the addresses listed there are unique (in the > sense that only those government offices have this address) or if there > are maybe a dozen other unrelated buildings which happen to have the > same address (which clashes with my understanding of the concept of an > address). Usually the places without a housenumber here have some kind of intrinsic distinctiveness/uniqueness. For example, an airport located in a road (there won't be 2 airports at the same road), some big industries/factories, an university campus, parks, places related to the government, etc. What we are trying to find is something similar to noname and noref, but for housenumbers (and avoid people entering all imaginable and unimaginable variants of "no housenumber" in addr:housenumber). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2018, at 00:30, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > I still don't know if the addresses listed there are unique (in the > sense that only those government offices have this address) or if there > are maybe a dozen other unrelated buildings which happen to have the > same address (which clashes with my understanding of the concept of an > address). it depends what the housenumber represents, in Germany this is either a plot or a building, depending on the Bundesland, for example in Italy it is an entrance (from the public to the private space), and if the buildings are all accessible by one entrance in the perimeter they can all have the same housenumber (external number, they should also get individual internal numbers). You can map just the number and create a kind of POI in itself, but if there is already a POI and you add address tags to it they are (also) a property of the POI. This is mapped with the same tags. To know whether the address is for a plot or an entrance requires additional knowledge about the legal situation and usage, you cannot see it from current data. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On 23/08/18 02:37, Andreas Vilén wrote: Please don’t use name=no name. Use noname=yes. +1 name= is for the name only. If it has no name then the tag name= should not be used. /Andreas Skickat från min iPhone 22 aug. 2018 kl. 17:17 skrev Nelson A. de Oliveira : What is the best way to represent places which have no housenumber? It's the same problem described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Addresses#Missing_housenumbers (and this same doubt arose recently in the Brazilian community) By leaving the housenumber empty we don't know in fact if the place doesn't have a housenumber or if it wasn't just filled. Similarly to using name="No name" to represent a street with no name, using any kind of value in addr:housenumber would be wrong and cause the same kind of problems. How could we solve this, please? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2018, at 23:47, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > where "S/N" is the abbreviation for > "sem número" = "no number" same here ‘snc’ = ‘senza numero civico’ means no housenumber, common in addresses. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > You know that we live in a heterogeneous world with many oddities and > peculiarities, that what makes sense in one country or region may not > make sense in another, that these definitions are beyond our control > and that we are only trying to represent what exists in the real > world, right? Well - tags are generally invented for a specific part of our heterogeneous world and you need to be careful when using the same tags in a very different geographic setting based on some superficial similarity. If in your area there are addresses that are very different from elsewhere it might not be a good idea to use the same tags for those. > But for example, multiple government offices are listed in this page > https://www.ma.gov.br/contatos/ and some, despite having a proper > address, don't have a housenumber (where "S/N" is the abbreviation > for "sem número" = "no number") I still don't know if the addresses listed there are unique (in the sense that only those government offices have this address) or if there are maybe a dozen other unrelated buildings which happen to have the same address (which clashes with my understanding of the concept of an address). Note to document a building/place belongs to a certain street we also have the concept of the associatedStreet relation. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > You probably have to give a real world example since i have no idea if > you want to say you have a building with a unique address consisting of > addr:street and addr:postcode (could be if there is only one building > at this street or with this postcode) or if you want to defend > pointless or non-verifiable tagging of addr:street for buildings > without a unique address. You know that we live in a heterogeneous world with many oddities and peculiarities, that what makes sense in one country or region may not make sense in another, that these definitions are beyond our control and that we are only trying to represent what exists in the real world, right? But for example, multiple government offices are listed in this page https://www.ma.gov.br/contatos/ and some, despite having a proper address, don't have a housenumber (where "S/N" is the abbreviation for "sem número" = "no number") ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 16:02 Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > > Specifying addr:street on a building that does not have an address > > > is either pointless or non-verifiable. > > > > But this happens here :-) > > Sometimes they are big buildings/areas (which occupies a whole city > > block, for example), with addr:street, addr:postcode but no > > addr:housenumber > > You probably have to give a real world example since i have no idea if > you want to say you have a building with a unique address consisting of > addr:street and addr:postcode (could be if there is only one building > at this street or with this postcode) or if you want to defend > pointless or non-verifiable tagging of addr:street for buildings > without a unique address. > Midway Public Schools 3rd Street Council Hill, Oklahoma Though I'd call "Midway Public Schools" a housename since there are numbered addresses on 3rd, but the schools aren't. Been there a few times for service calls, know this example firsthand. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Rory McCann wrote: > > The single most important property of an address is that it is > > unique > > 35% of addresses in Ireland aren't unique. I strongly suspect we have a different understanding of either 'address' or 'uniqueness' here. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
Plenty of house in Ireland don't have a housenumber. So just don't add addr:housenumber! If there's a name, then use addr:housename. IMO you should enter the correct "addr:*" tags, and it's up to the geocoder to show them right. You could always use addr:full to help it? I think "name:absent=yes" is better for "this thing doesn't have a name", which is extensible to "addr:housenumber:absent=yes". But is anywhere using *any* "no name" scheme? On 22.08.2018 17:17, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: What is the best way to represent places which have no housenumber? It's the same problem described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Addresses#Missing_housenumbers (and this same doubt arose recently in the Brazilian community) By leaving the housenumber empty we don't know in fact if the place doesn't have a housenumber or if it wasn't just filled. Similarly to using name="No name" to represent a street with no name, using any kind of value in addr:housenumber would be wrong and cause the same kind of problems. How could we solve this, please? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On 22.08.2018 22:28, Christoph Hormann wrote: The single most important property of an address is that it is unique 35% of addresses in Ireland aren't unique. The newly introduced (and hardly used) postcode system gives a unique code to every letter box, so it's now unique-able. But to say there were no addresses in Ireland pre-2014 is silly. Technically by Irish standards, German addresses aren't unique, and probably more non-unique than Ireland's "35%". https://www.eircode.ie/faqs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > Specifying addr:street on a building that does not have an address > > is either pointless or non-verifiable. > > But this happens here :-) > Sometimes they are big buildings/areas (which occupies a whole city > block, for example), with addr:street, addr:postcode but no > addr:housenumber You probably have to give a real world example since i have no idea if you want to say you have a building with a unique address consisting of addr:street and addr:postcode (could be if there is only one building at this street or with this postcode) or if you want to defend pointless or non-verifiable tagging of addr:street for buildings without a unique address. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > Specifying addr:street on a building that does not have an address is > either pointless or non-verifiable. But this happens here :-) Sometimes they are big buildings/areas (which occupies a whole city block, for example), with addr:street, addr:postcode but no addr:housenumber ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > What's wrong with noaddress=yes? > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noaddress > > the wiki says noaddress is for places without an address, but the > places I have in mind do have an address, they have a street, > postcode, city, just no housenumber. The single most important property of an address is that it is unique so a building or other place than does not have a housenumber, housename or another component that makes the address unique does not have an address at all even if you can specify a street, city etc. at/in which it is located. Specifying addr:street on a building that does not have an address is either pointless or non-verifiable. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
Please don’t use name=no name. Use noname=yes. /Andreas Skickat från min iPhone > 22 aug. 2018 kl. 17:17 skrev Nelson A. de Oliveira : > > What is the best way to represent places which have no housenumber? > > It's the same problem described in > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Addresses#Missing_housenumbers > (and this same doubt arose recently in the Brazilian community) > > By leaving the housenumber empty we don't know in fact if the place > doesn't have a housenumber or if it wasn't just filled. > > Similarly to using name="No name" to represent a street with no name, > using any kind of value in addr:housenumber would be wrong and cause > the same kind of problems. > > How could we solve this, please? > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2018, at 17:35, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > I assume you mean no addr:housenumber and no addr:housename. > > What's wrong with noaddress=yes? > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noaddress the wiki says noaddress is for places without an address, but the places I have in mind do have an address, they have a street, postcode, city, just no housenumber. While it is against the formal requirements set up by national institutions, it is still a quite frequent situation in the countryside. If there is a shop or restaurant it might be arguable to repeat the business name as addr:housename on the address object, but usually in these cases the address object is the same as the business object (in the osm representation), so I enter only name and don’t duplicate. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > What is the best way to represent places which have no housenumber? > > [...] I assume you mean no addr:housenumber and no addr:housename. What's wrong with noaddress=yes? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noaddress -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2018, at 17:17, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > Similarly to using name="No name" to represent a street with no name, > using any kind of value in addr:housenumber would be wrong and cause > the same kind of problems. > > How could we solve this, please? no_housenumber=yes or if you like typing: no_addr:housenumber=yes I admit I have recently added some addr:housenumber=no but I agree it is not clean Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
What is the best way to represent places which have no housenumber? It's the same problem described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Addresses#Missing_housenumbers (and this same doubt arose recently in the Brazilian community) By leaving the housenumber empty we don't know in fact if the place doesn't have a housenumber or if it wasn't just filled. Similarly to using name="No name" to represent a street with no name, using any kind of value in addr:housenumber would be wrong and cause the same kind of problems. How could we solve this, please? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
