Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Marc Gemis]

Ik probeer nu de regel toe te passen (ik het verleden deed ik het wel eens
verkeerd)

- geen verkeersbord -> highway=path
- met verkeersbord: cycleway of footway.

heel dikwijls zijn die paadjes dus highway=path, met de nodige extra tags
om fietsers en/of voetgangers toe te laten.

deze komt misschien ook nog van pas:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths

groeten

m

2014-11-03 10:53 GMT+01:00 Jakka :

> @Marc,
>
> geen foto maar als beschrijving:
> in wijken waar straten doodlopen (pijpekoppen) verbinden soms de
> voetpaden, weggetjes verhard de enen doodlopende straat met de andere, soms
> met een boordsteen (bordure) tussen straat en doorgang soms gelijksvloer
> maar dan staat er een hindernis paaltje of metalen hekje geschrankt zodanig
> da men niet met volle snelheid uit het pad de straat op kan (oa veiligheid
> kinderen).
> Die zaken liggen gevoelsmatig dicht bij elkaar maar voor de codering is
> het één of ander. En dat ontbreekt mij voor het ogenblik.
> Met de tabel van uitzonderingen moet ik al een stap verder geraken.
> Vele tags zullen dus foutwezen. Ik zal deze herbekijken en de regel
> toepassen
>
> Jakka
>
> Marc Gemis schreef op 3/11/2014 om 7:22:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:10 AM, André Pirard > > wrote:
>>
>> The rules you're speaking of are here, especially for Belgium
>> > Access-Restrictions#Belgium>.
>>
>>
>> This page says that highway=footway means vehicle=no in Belgium (as all
>> categories, except foot have a no for that row), so why would you have
>> to add access=no ?
>>
>> Jakka, do you have a picture of the footway you want to map ? Is there a
>> traffic sign ? Otherwise it's highway=path, not footway
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> m
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Jakka]

@Marc,

geen foto maar als beschrijving:
in wijken waar straten doodlopen (pijpekoppen) verbinden soms de 
voetpaden, weggetjes verhard de enen doodlopende straat met de andere, 
soms met een boordsteen (bordure) tussen straat en doorgang soms 
gelijksvloer maar dan staat er een hindernis paaltje of metalen hekje 
geschrankt zodanig da men niet met volle snelheid uit het pad de straat 
op kan (oa veiligheid kinderen).
Die zaken liggen gevoelsmatig dicht bij elkaar maar voor de codering is 
het één of ander. En dat ontbreekt mij voor het ogenblik.

Met de tabel van uitzonderingen moet ik al een stap verder geraken.
Vele tags zullen dus foutwezen. Ik zal deze herbekijken en de regel 
toepassen


Jakka

Marc Gemis schreef op 3/11/2014 om 7:22:


On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:10 AM, André Pirard mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The rules you're speaking of are here, especially for Belgium

.


This page says that highway=footway means vehicle=no in Belgium (as all
categories, except foot have a no for that row), so why would you have
to add access=no ?

Jakka, do you have a picture of the footway you want to map ? Is there a
traffic sign ? Otherwise it's highway=path, not footway


regards

m


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be





___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Marc Gemis]

On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Jakka  wrote:

> highway=footway
> access=no
> bicycle=yes
>

Jakka,

this actually means that only cyclists are allowed.

as Andre pointed out   (by linking to the Belgian rules) highway=footway
means a "road" with vehicle=no,foot=yes. Thus something where only
pedestrians are allowed.

By then explicitly marking it as access=no, you remove all access rights
(also those for pedestrians). And  you only turn access on for cyclists by
adding bicycle=yes.

With respect to "except that bicycle=yes is meaningless if there's no other
tag
forbidding bikes such as access=no."   The "access=no" for cyclists is part
of highway=footway, so you do not have to tag that explicitly.

So yes, in the case of  highway=cycleway,bicycle=yes   the latter is
meaningless. Why ? Well highway=cycleway means foot=yes,bicycle=yes; so
there is no tag forbidding cyclist.
Please note that in some countries (e.g. Germany) highway=cycleway means
bicycle=yes, foot=no !

To summarise: there is no need to explicitly tag what is implicitly stated
by the type of highway. For that see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Belgium
Only tag exceptions to those rules

nothing fuzzy about that.

regards & happy mapping

m
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Marc Gemis]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:10 AM, André Pirard 
wrote:

> The rules you're speaking of are here, especially for Belgium
> 
> .
>

This page says that highway=footway means vehicle=no in Belgium (as all
categories, except foot have a no for that row), so why would you have to
add access=no ?

Jakka, do you have a picture of the footway you want to map ? Is there a
traffic sign ? Otherwise it's highway=path, not footway


regards

m
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[André Pirard]

On 2014-11-02 22:27, Jakka wrote :
> André,
>
> highway=footway
> access=no
> bicycle=yes
>
> is it necessery to add
>
> foot=yes think not becausr highway is set to footway ?
>
> I am corecting my and other tag in my region.

You're right, Jakka.
But beware that, unlike what many contributors say an do, it's not a
matter of personal feeling.
Routing software (GPS) are programs that blindly obey the rules from the
wiki.
Hence, for routing, mappers must follow those rules exactly too.
Else, the vehicles and pedestrians are told to go where they're not
allowed to.

The rules you're speaking of are here, especially for Belgium
.

I congratulate your sense of precision.
Some blokes may tell you that you still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy.
Just shrug your shoulders.

Happy mapping.

André.





>
> André Pirard schreef op 16/09/2014 om 19:59:
>> On 2014-09-16 15:24, André Pirard wrote :
>>>
>>> bicycle
>>>  yes
>>> highway 
>>> residential
>>> 
>>> maxspeed
>>>  50
>>> name 
>>> Damstraat
>>>
>>>
>>> except that bicycle=yes is meaningless if there's no other tag
>>> forbidding bikes such as access=no.
>>> It's a very very very common mistake all over the country making
>>> newbies believe that bicycle=yes is forbidding cars.
>> This is what I mean with "very very very
>> ".
>>
>> I corrected many of them (in other regions).
>> And this is the harmless kind, others forbid bicycles or cars where they
>> can go.
>> Or, worse, let them go where they are not allowed.
>> (They say that I must learn that OSM is fuzzy)
>> Please note that the script may need more NOT conditions that you may
>> add as you find false positive.
>>
>> Happy hunting,
>>
>> André.

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Jakka]

André,

highway=footway
access=no
bicycle=yes

is it necessery to add

foot=yes think not becausr highway is set to footway ?

I am corecting my and other tag in my region.

André Pirard schreef op 16/09/2014 om 19:59:

On 2014-09-16 15:24, André Pirard wrote :


bicycle    yes
highway 
residential

maxspeed  50
name  Damstraat


except that bicycle=yes is meaningless if there's no other tag
forbidding bikes such as access=no.
It's a very very very common mistake all over the country making
newbies believe that bicycle=yes is forbidding cars.

This is what I mean with "very very very
".
I corrected many of them (in other regions).
And this is the harmless kind, others forbid bicycles or cars where they
can go.
Or, worse, let them go where they are not allowed.
(They say that I must learn that OSM is fuzzy)
Please note that the script may need more NOT conditions that you may
add as you find false positive.

Happy hunting,

André.





___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be





___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Gilbert Hersschens]

I agree with Marc. My interpretation of the wiki is also that address tags
don't belong on highways.
Haven't seen any of those in my backyard so far...
Just my 2 cents.

On 16 September 2014 21:10, Marc Gemis  wrote:

>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:
>
>> This looks to be a bigger problem than I thought.TAA is doing this
>> everywhere.  Checking the wiki, this isn't even wrong actually.
>>
>> I quote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr
>>
>> "A way with highway=* and the corresponding name should be found nearby.
>> The belonging to a street can alternatively be represented by a
>> associatedStreet relation."
>>
>> He's actually marking private driveways and private roads with the
>> addressing schema.
>>
>
> that same page also states "To provide address information for buildings
> and facilities"
> So IMHO it should not go on ways (including service roads).
>
> I wonder which application uses addr:street on ways.
>
> While it is not needed, it doesn't harm. So it wouldn't be my first
> priority to fix, when I will remove one when I encounter it. As André
> pointed out, there are more serious errors (e.g. bad routing).
>
> regards
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

> This looks to be a bigger problem than I thought.TAA is doing this
> everywhere.  Checking the wiki, this isn't even wrong actually.
>
> I quote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr
>
> "A way with highway=* and the corresponding name should be found nearby.
> The belonging to a street can alternatively be represented by a
> associatedStreet relation."
>
> He's actually marking private driveways and private roads with the
> addressing schema.
>

that same page also states "To provide address information for buildings
and facilities"
So IMHO it should not go on ways (including service roads).

I wonder which application uses addr:street on ways.

While it is not needed, it doesn't harm. So it wouldn't be my first
priority to fix, when I will remove one when I encounter it. As André
pointed out, there are more serious errors (e.g. bad routing).

regards
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Glenn Plas]

Ok,

This looks to be a bigger problem than I thought.TAA is doing this
everywhere.  Checking the wiki, this isn't even wrong actually.

I quote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr

"A way with highway=* and the corresponding name should be found nearby.
The belonging to a street can alternatively be represented by a
associatedStreet relation."

He's actually marking private driveways and private roads with the
addressing schema.

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/54K

Now the question is: Am I going to 'fix' all that?   Is this even useful
to add addres schema information to ways like this ?

It's like he's mapping for a routing algorithm that needs help.

Glenn



___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Glenn Plas]

There are actually plenty of these according to Overpass...

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/54J


On 16-09-14 18:07, Marc Gemis wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Glenn Plas  > wrote:
> 
> Last week I corrected something similar like that made by a guy called
> 'escada'. Not joking here, decided to keep it under the rug this time..
> But that was about 4 years old.  Mine is from a year ago.
> 
> 
> I would keep a close eye on that guy. Never trust his changes :-)
> 
> regards
> 
> p.s. thanks for keeping that starters error silent, I started in April
> 2011...
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


-- 
"Everything is going to be 200 OK."

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[André Pirard]

  
  
On 2014-09-16 15:24, André Pirard wrote
  :

 
  

  
bicycle
yes
  
  
highway
residential
  
  
maxspeed
50
  
  
name
Damstraat
  

  
  
  except that bicycle=yes is meaningless if there's no other tag
  forbidding bikes such as access=no.
  It's a very very very common mistake all over the country making
  newbies believe that bicycle=yes is forbidding cars.

This is what I mean with "very
  very very".
I corrected many of them (in other regions).
And this is the harmless kind, others forbid bicycles or cars where
they can go.
Or, worse, let them go where they are not allowed.
(They say that I must learn that OSM is fuzzy)
Please note that the script may need more NOT conditions that you
may add as you find false positive.

Happy hunting,


  

  André.

  



  


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

> Last week I corrected something similar like that made by a guy called
> 'escada'. Not joking here, decided to keep it under the rug this time..
> But that was about 4 years old.  Mine is from a year ago.
>

I would keep a close eye on that guy. Never trust his changes :-)

regards

p.s. thanks for keeping that starters error silent, I started in April
2011...
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Glenn Plas]

:) Totally believe it,Yes.

Sounds like what I should have done in the first place...

Last week I corrected something similar like that made by a guy called
'escada'. Not joking here, decided to keep it under the rug this time..
But that was about 4 years old.  Mine is from a year ago.

Perhaps I need to go backtrack my changes.  I corrected about 100 ways
in my town like this, perhaps I messed a bit too much with josm filters
and mapCSS back then.  I do recall some of it.

This key is really on all the ways here, and it doesn't belong on most
of them.

Our TAA user is actually good for keeping this area sharp and neat, just
by drawing attention on it.

Glenn



On 16-09-14 17:45, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Would you believe when I say that I checked, just to make sure I didn't
> make the mistake ? :-)
> 
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Glenn Plas  > wrote:
> 
> @marc If you wouldn't be as ironic as you where I wouldn't have noticed
> this.  Tx!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


-- 
"Everything is going to be 200 OK."

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Marc Gemis]

Would you believe when I say that I checked, just to make sure I didn't
make the mistake ? :-)

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

> @marc If you wouldn't be as ironic as you where I wouldn't have noticed
> this.  Tx!
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Glenn Plas]

Ok, not so long ago I seemed to have tagged ALL the ways with an extra
bicycle=yes tag. Not just that one, but about every way there.   I've
found a bug in my brain.

And it's not like I don't understand the usage of the key back then.
This looks like a general / preset mistake that got proliferated

@marc If you wouldn't be as ironic as you where I wouldn't have noticed
this.  Tx!

Glenn

On 16-09-14 16:41, Glenn Plas wrote:
> The minute I posted that claim,  I figured chances where high I did this
> myself -but plenty of years ago-, I wasn't as honed as I am today ;-)


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Glenn Plas]

The minute I posted that claim,  I figured chances where high I did this
myself -but plenty of years ago-, I wasn't as honed as I am today ;-)

Now let's fix this aberration!

Glenn

On 16-09-14 16:15, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Sstt, it (bicycle=yes) was added by Glenn in
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/17185921 ,
> see http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24301581/history :-)
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Glenn Plas  > wrote:
> 
> Will do.  There is no cycleway at all, it's a small street, barely wide
> enough for 2 cars to pass.  That tag is probably not from his last edit
> but from years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


-- 
"Everything is going to be 200 OK."

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Marc Gemis]

Sstt, it (bicycle=yes) was added by Glenn in
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/17185921 , see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24301581/history :-)


On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

> Will do.  There is no cycleway at all, it's a small street, barely wide
> enough for 2 cars to pass.  That tag is probably not from his last edit
> but from years ago.
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Glenn Plas]

On 16-09-14 15:24, André Pirard wrote:
> On 2014-09-16 10:43, Glenn Plas wrote :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed some update of our einzelganger TAA putting up addres
>> information on the way.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think this
>> is not correct, check way:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24301581#map=19/50.96972/4.47523
>>
>> Now he put a 'name' key + an addr:street key in it.I'm about to
>> delete this mistake but I wanted to make sure that no radical changes
>> have been implemented lately making this ok.
>>
>> Let me know what you think.
> I checked it as requested and I see nothing wrong in this

Thanks, that must be since my fix I've already committed, check the
previous version of this way instead.


> 
> bicycle    yes
> highway 
> residential
> 
> maxspeed  
> 50
> name  
> Damstraat
> 
> 
> except that bicycle=yes is meaningless if there's no other tag
> forbidding bikes such as access=no.
> It's a very very very common mistake all over the country making newbies
> believe that it's forbidding cars.
> It should be removed.

Will do.  There is no cycleway at all, it's a small street, barely wide
enough for 2 cars to pass.  That tag is probably not from his last edit
but from years ago.

You can still see his changeset and what changed here:

http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=25463368

Greetings

Glenn

> The mapper may have meant cycleway
> =track or some other
> variant of that.

The arm-chair bing mapper would probably not even know what's out there
in real live though.

Glenn


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[André Pirard]

  
  
On 2014-09-16 10:43, Glenn Plas wrote :


  Hi,

I noticed some update of our einzelganger TAA putting up addres
information on the way.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think this
is not correct, check way:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24301581#map=19/50.96972/4.47523

Now he put a 'name' key + an addr:street key in it.I'm about to
delete this mistake but I wanted to make sure that no radical changes
have been implemented lately making this ok.

Let me know what you think.


I checked it as requested and I see nothing wrong in this


  

  bicycle
  yes


  highway
  residential


  maxspeed
  50


  name
  Damstraat

  


except that bicycle=yes is meaningless if there's no other tag
forbidding bikes such as access=no.
It's a very very very common mistake all over the country making
newbies believe that it's forbidding cars.
It should be removed.
The mapper may have meant cycleway=track or some other
variant of that.


  

  André.

  



  


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Glenn Plas]

I've seen so many of them I started to doubt myself.  It's indeed just
'name' on the street.   He's putting up addr:housenumber's as wel using
his own interpolation method: "9 - 21" for example, and he's doing it on
streets where all houses already have addr:housenumber tags.

He's the perfect example of an armchair mapper.   Sometimes using
outdated bing sat pics to 'fix' things that aren't broken.  (like moving
buildings based on positions in bing (which are offset at the lowest
zoom levels).  So everytime I'm correcting this using AGIV

It's starting to become a real problem for gardeners having to cleanup
everytime the armchair mapper passes by.

On 16-09-14 10:59, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Adding addr:street to a road, is something I've done accidentally as
> well. As far as I know it's "name" on a road/street, "addr:street" on
> buildings and POIs.
> IMHO you can remove the addr:street tag
> 
> 
> regards
> 
> m
> 
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Glenn Plas  > wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I noticed some update of our einzelganger TAA putting up addres
> information on the way.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think this
> is not correct, check way:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24301581#map=19/50.96972/4.47523
> 
> Now he put a 'name' key + an addr:street key in it.I'm about to
> delete this mistake but I wanted to make sure that no radical changes
> have been implemented lately making this ok.
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> 
> Glenn
> 
> 
> --
> "Everything is going to be 200 OK."
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


-- 
"Everything is going to be 200 OK."

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Marc Gemis]

Adding addr:street to a road, is something I've done accidentally as well.
As far as I know it's "name" on a road/street, "addr:street" on buildings
and POIs.
IMHO you can remove the addr:street tag


regards

m

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I noticed some update of our einzelganger TAA putting up addres
> information on the way.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think this
> is not correct, check way:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24301581#map=19/50.96972/4.47523
>
> Now he put a 'name' key + an addr:street key in it.I'm about to
> delete this mistake but I wanted to make sure that no radical changes
> have been implemented lately making this ok.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
>
> Glenn
>
>
> --
> "Everything is going to be 200 OK."
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] addr:street on way

[Glenn Plas]

Hi,

I noticed some update of our einzelganger TAA putting up addres
information on the way.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think this
is not correct, check way:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24301581#map=19/50.96972/4.47523

Now he put a 'name' key + an addr:street key in it.I'm about to
delete this mistake but I wanted to make sure that no radical changes
have been implemented lately making this ok.

Let me know what you think.


Glenn


-- 
"Everything is going to be 200 OK."

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be