Re: [Talk-ee] verbatium buiding import discussion
Hi, When I did Tartu bulk delete-replace with the city gov data long time ago, then I contacted all the previous editors in the area and asked their permission. As number of existing data was small, then they were ok. Here most buildings seem to have some manual or semi-manual edits after import, I would group the edits by the involved users (juhanjuku, kaupov seem to be popular), and ask their permission before basically deleting their efforts. Where you dont get permission better use soft approach there: just mark changes for manual checks by community. Jaak > On 24 Sep 2019, at 07:50, SviMik wrote: > > I have analyzed the largest verbatium's import (changesets 591093, 579407, > 572107, 569277, 569055 (ways) + 561094, 559707, 558636, 558056, 557568, > 557358, 557193, 556899 (nodes only)), which was made in 2008. That covers > 86.7% of all his edits. > The import was covering Tallinn, Saue and Maardu. Turned out verbatium wasn't > particulary active outside Harjumaa. > There were total 67813 ways imported, 9032 of them are already deleted by > other editors, and 17878 were changed either in geometry or tags* department > (15529 has a geometry change, and 5077 has a tag change), which leaves 40903 > buildings for deletion. > * I did not count the following tags because they are part of my imports > anyway: addr:city, addr:country, addr:housenumber, addr:street, maaamet:ETAK, > maaamet:orig_tunnus, source, source:addr, addr2:* > * If some change was reverted I do not count it as a change, because I only > compare the first and the last version > > Here is the list of ways for deletion: > http://svimik.com/verbatium_import1_ways_unchanged1.txt > > Here is the full report for all the 67813 ways: > http://svimik.com/verbatium_import1_ways1.csv > > Full list of his changesets: > http://svimik.com/verbatium_changesets.xls > > Currently, the bbox of his changesets has 91324 buildings, which means... > We're gonna delete 44.79% of Saue-Tallinn-Maardu buildings. That gonna be > interesting. Should we split it by 10k for example? Or just start with Maardu > and see what happens? > > > Воскресенье, 15 сентября 2019, 9:42 +03:00 от "Jaak Laineste" > : >> Hoi, >> >> Jah, need peaks kustutama. Enne võiks teha muudatuse analüüsi - kui palju ja >> kus kustutataks, ega mõned linnad kohe väga tühjaks ei jää. >> >> Jaak >> >> p.s. sama asi ka corine impordi osade tag-idega, näiteks põllud (field), need >> on pigem müra kui info kaardil. >> >> >> >>> On 14 Sep 2019, at 15:34, SviMik via Talk-ee >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone! >>> >>> I'd like to discuss the import made by verbatium in 2008: >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/569055 >>> (...and other similar changesets) >>> >>> There are two issues with that import: >>> 1. Unknown data source with unknown license (probably it was a Garmin map >> judging by the Type=0x13 tag) >>> 2. Poor quality of the data. If you see a building distorted like this: >> http://svimik.com/verbatiumimport1.png >>> - you can be sure it's verbatium's. Maybe it was OK in 2008, but in 2019 we >> have much better options. >>> >>> What can be done: >>> 1. Remove all buildings which geometry and tags were not edited since the >> initial import. For the tags the following exceptions can be made because >> they >> were automatic edits: >>> - User xybot has fixed the tag typo (buildung=yes) in the initial import and >> added its own tag (created_by=xybot) >>> - User juhanjuku has removed the Type=0x13 and created_by=xybot tags >>> - User SviMik_import has imported the address tags to these buildings from >> the Maa-amet database (nothing that can't be imported again) >>> 2. Proceed with the Maa-amet building import as usual >>> >>> It will solve: >>> 1. The license issue (if there is any) >>> 2. The quality issue (if you agree there is an issue) >>> 3. Will update the map in general, for example the demolished buildings will >> be removed from OSM. >>> >>> For buildings which geometry was changed by other contributors after the >> initial import - we can assume both license and quality issues were solved >> since they no longer contain the imported geometry. I know it's a grey field, >> and I'm not sure it works like that, but at least these buildings do have >> some >> excuse to stay. >>> >>> For buildings which geometry was NOT changed, but some POI tags were added - >> let them stay for now and discuss it later if needed. I suspect it will be a >> rare case, but the exact number is unknown right now. >>> >>> Questions: >>> 1. Has anyone else digged into the issue, maybe asked verbatium himself? >>> 2. Can anyone confirm that the import indeed has the license problem? >>> 3. Is the proposed plan good? (in case if you agree that it needs to be >> fixed) >>> >>> -- >>> SviMik >>> ___ >>> Talk-ee mailing list >>> Talk-ee@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ee >> >>
Re: [Talk-ee] verbatium buiding import discussion
Would you consider using osmose-qa here? It would require one-time creating connector for maa-amet buildings shp, and this will be useful in any case, for whole country and for long time, permanently even. Then there are two ways to apply it for Tallinn: (a) remove all verbatium and then it shows all deleted buildings as missing or (b) softer - no delete, shows latest maaamet ones as just more uptodate and users can click through each. Maybe it has some more bulk updating also. I’d start with the soft one, helps to precheck the changes also, even if you end up bulk delete+upload. Creating and deploy proper connector which identifies both maaamet real updates and verbatium properly may require some learning and sweat. Jaak (Sent from mobile) > On 24 Sep 2019, at 23:46, SviMik wrote: > > http://svimik.com/verbatiumimportmap1.png > Here's the screenshot. Not precise, but gives some idea. > 40903 buildings is a bit too much for JOSM. > > > Вторник, 24 сентября 2019, 22:08 +03:00 от "Jaak Laineste" : >> >> These txt reports with IDs are not too visual, can you create any renderable >> file for josm (.osm for example) or screenshot to show the community what it >> really means? Are the building under question random or somehow in specific >> areas etc. I dont know if there is any "test osm server” for such >> experiments >> nowadays somewhere, probably not. >> >> Jaak >> >>> On 24 Sep 2019, at 07:50, SviMik wrote: >>> >>> I have analyzed the largest verbatium's import (changesets 591093, 579407, >> 572107, 569277, 569055 (ways) + 561094, 559707, 558636, 558056, 557568, >> 557358, 557193, 556899 (nodes only)), which was made in 2008. That covers >> 86.7% of all his edits. >>> The import was covering Tallinn, Saue and Maardu. Turned out verbatium >> wasn't particulary active outside Harjumaa. >>> There were total 67813 ways imported, 9032 of them are already deleted by >> other editors, and 17878 were changed either in geometry or tags* department >> (15529 has a geometry change, and 5077 has a tag change), which leaves 40903 >> buildings for deletion. >>> * I did not count the following tags because they are part of my imports >> anyway: addr:city, addr:country, addr:housenumber, addr:street, maaamet:ETAK, >> maaamet:orig_tunnus, source, source:addr, addr2:* >>> * If some change was reverted I do not count it as a change, because I only >> compare the first and the last version >>> >>> Here is the list of ways for deletion: >>> http://svimik.com/verbatium_import1_ways_unchanged1.txt >>> >>> Here is the full report for all the 67813 ways: >>> http://svimik.com/verbatium_import1_ways1.csv >>> >>> Full list of his changesets: >>> http://svimik.com/verbatium_changesets.xls >>> >>> Currently, the bbox of his changesets has 91324 buildings, which means... >> We're gonna delete 44.79% of Saue-Tallinn-Maardu buildings. That gonna be >> interesting. Should we split it by 10k for example? Or just start with Maardu >> and see what happens? >>> >>> >>> Воскресенье, 15 сентября 2019, 9:42 +03:00 от "Jaak Laineste" >> : Hoi, Jah, need peaks kustutama. Enne võiks teha muudatuse analüüsi - kui palju >> ja kus kustutataks, ega mõned linnad kohe väga tühjaks ei jää. Jaak p.s. sama asi ka corine impordi osade tag-idega, näiteks põllud (field), >> need on pigem müra kui info kaardil. > On 14 Sep 2019, at 15:34, SviMik via Talk-ee wrote: > > Hi everyone! > > I'd like to discuss the import made by verbatium in 2008: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/569055 > (...and other similar changesets) > > There are two issues with that import: > 1. Unknown data source with unknown license (probably it was a Garmin map judging by the Type=0x13 tag) > 2. Poor quality of the data. If you see a building distorted like this: http://svimik.com/verbatiumimport1.png > - you can be sure it's verbatium's. Maybe it was OK in 2008, but in 2019 >> we have much better options. > > What can be done: > 1. Remove all buildings which geometry and tags were not edited since the initial import. For the tags the following exceptions can be made because >> they were automatic edits: > - User xybot has fixed the tag typo (buildung=yes) in the initial import >> and added its own tag (created_by=xybot) > - User juhanjuku has removed the Type=0x13 and created_by=xybot tags > - User SviMik_import has imported the address tags to these buildings from the Maa-amet database (nothing that can't be imported again) > 2. Proceed with the Maa-amet building import as usual > > It will solve: > 1. The license issue (if there is any) > 2. The quality issue (if you agree there is an issue) > 3. Will update the map in general, for example the demolished buildings >> will be removed from OSM. > > For buildings which geometry
Re: [Talk-ee] verbatium buiding import discussion
Hi, osm test server exists complete with rendering. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing Regards, Mihkel On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:08 PM Jaak Laineste wrote: > > > These txt reports with IDs are not too visual, can you create any renderable > file for josm (.osm for example) or screenshot to show the community what it > really means? Are the building under question random or somehow in specific > areas etc. I dont know if there is any "test osm server” for such > experiments nowadays somewhere, probably not. > > Jaak > > > On 24 Sep 2019, at 07:50, SviMik wrote: > > > > I have analyzed the largest verbatium's import (changesets 591093, 579407, > > 572107, 569277, 569055 (ways) + 561094, 559707, 558636, 558056, 557568, > > 557358, 557193, 556899 (nodes only)), which was made in 2008. That covers > > 86.7% of all his edits. > > The import was covering Tallinn, Saue and Maardu. Turned out verbatium > > wasn't particulary active outside Harjumaa. > > There were total 67813 ways imported, 9032 of them are already deleted by > > other editors, and 17878 were changed either in geometry or tags* > > department (15529 has a geometry change, and 5077 has a tag change), which > > leaves 40903 buildings for deletion. > > * I did not count the following tags because they are part of my imports > > anyway: addr:city, addr:country, addr:housenumber, addr:street, > > maaamet:ETAK, maaamet:orig_tunnus, source, source:addr, addr2:* > > * If some change was reverted I do not count it as a change, because I only > > compare the first and the last version > > > > Here is the list of ways for deletion: > > http://svimik.com/verbatium_import1_ways_unchanged1.txt > > > > Here is the full report for all the 67813 ways: > > http://svimik.com/verbatium_import1_ways1.csv > > > > Full list of his changesets: > > http://svimik.com/verbatium_changesets.xls > > > > Currently, the bbox of his changesets has 91324 buildings, which means... > > We're gonna delete 44.79% of Saue-Tallinn-Maardu buildings. That gonna be > > interesting. Should we split it by 10k for example? Or just start with > > Maardu and see what happens? > > > > > > Воскресенье, 15 сентября 2019, 9:42 +03:00 от "Jaak Laineste" > > : > >> Hoi, > >> > >> Jah, need peaks kustutama. Enne võiks teha muudatuse analüüsi - kui palju > >> ja > >> kus kustutataks, ega mõned linnad kohe väga tühjaks ei jää. > >> > >> Jaak > >> > >> p.s. sama asi ka corine impordi osade tag-idega, näiteks põllud (field), > >> need > >> on pigem müra kui info kaardil. > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 14 Sep 2019, at 15:34, SviMik via Talk-ee > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everyone! > >>> > >>> I'd like to discuss the import made by verbatium in 2008: > >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/569055 > >>> (...and other similar changesets) > >>> > >>> There are two issues with that import: > >>> 1. Unknown data source with unknown license (probably it was a Garmin map > >> judging by the Type=0x13 tag) > >>> 2. Poor quality of the data. If you see a building distorted like this: > >> http://svimik.com/verbatiumimport1.png > >>> - you can be sure it's verbatium's. Maybe it was OK in 2008, but in 2019 > >>> we > >> have much better options. > >>> > >>> What can be done: > >>> 1. Remove all buildings which geometry and tags were not edited since the > >> initial import. For the tags the following exceptions can be made because > >> they > >> were automatic edits: > >>> - User xybot has fixed the tag typo (buildung=yes) in the initial import > >>> and > >> added its own tag (created_by=xybot) > >>> - User juhanjuku has removed the Type=0x13 and created_by=xybot tags > >>> - User SviMik_import has imported the address tags to these buildings from > >> the Maa-amet database (nothing that can't be imported again) > >>> 2. Proceed with the Maa-amet building import as usual > >>> > >>> It will solve: > >>> 1. The license issue (if there is any) > >>> 2. The quality issue (if you agree there is an issue) > >>> 3. Will update the map in general, for example the demolished buildings > >>> will > >> be removed from OSM. > >>> > >>> For buildings which geometry was changed by other contributors after the > >> initial import - we can assume both license and quality issues were solved > >> since they no longer contain the imported geometry. I know it's a grey > >> field, > >> and I'm not sure it works like that, but at least these buildings do have > >> some > >> excuse to stay. > >>> > >>> For buildings which geometry was NOT changed, but some POI tags were > >>> added - > >> let them stay for now and discuss it later if needed. I suspect it will be > >> a > >> rare case, but the exact number is unknown right now. > >>> > >>> Questions: > >>> 1. Has anyone else digged into the issue, maybe asked verbatium himself? > >>> 2. Can anyone confirm that the import indeed has the license problem? > >>> 3. Is the proposed plan good? (in case if you agree that it needs to be > >>
Re: [Talk-ee] verbatium buiding import discussion
http://svimik.com/verbatiumimportmap1.png Here's the screenshot. Not precise, but gives some idea. 40903 buildings is a bit too much for JOSM. Вторник, 24 сентября 2019, 22:08 +03:00 от "Jaak Laineste" : > > These txt reports with IDs are not too visual, can you create any renderable > file for josm (.osm for example) or screenshot to show the community what it > really means? Are the building under question random or somehow in specific > areas etc. I dont know if there is any "test osm server” for such experiments > nowadays somewhere, probably not. > > Jaak > > > On 24 Sep 2019, at 07:50, SviMik wrote: > > > > I have analyzed the largest verbatium's import (changesets 591093, 579407, > 572107, 569277, 569055 (ways) + 561094, 559707, 558636, 558056, 557568, > 557358, 557193, 556899 (nodes only)), which was made in 2008. That covers > 86.7% of all his edits. > > The import was covering Tallinn, Saue and Maardu. Turned out verbatium > wasn't particulary active outside Harjumaa. > > There were total 67813 ways imported, 9032 of them are already deleted by > other editors, and 17878 were changed either in geometry or tags* department > (15529 has a geometry change, and 5077 has a tag change), which leaves 40903 > buildings for deletion. > > * I did not count the following tags because they are part of my imports > anyway: addr:city, addr:country, addr:housenumber, addr:street, maaamet:ETAK, > maaamet:orig_tunnus, source, source:addr, addr2:* > > * If some change was reverted I do not count it as a change, because I only > compare the first and the last version > > > > Here is the list of ways for deletion: > > http://svimik.com/verbatium_import1_ways_unchanged1.txt > > > > Here is the full report for all the 67813 ways: > > http://svimik.com/verbatium_import1_ways1.csv > > > > Full list of his changesets: > > http://svimik.com/verbatium_changesets.xls > > > > Currently, the bbox of his changesets has 91324 buildings, which means... > We're gonna delete 44.79% of Saue-Tallinn-Maardu buildings. That gonna be > interesting. Should we split it by 10k for example? Or just start with Maardu > and see what happens? > > > > > > Воскресенье, 15 сентября 2019, 9:42 +03:00 от "Jaak Laineste" > : > >> Hoi, > >> > >> Jah, need peaks kustutama. Enne võiks teha muudatuse analüüsi - kui palju > ja > >> kus kustutataks, ega mõned linnad kohe väga tühjaks ei jää. > >> > >> Jaak > >> > >> p.s. sama asi ka corine impordi osade tag-idega, näiteks põllud (field), > need > >> on pigem müra kui info kaardil. > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 14 Sep 2019, at 15:34, SviMik via Talk-ee > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everyone! > >>> > >>> I'd like to discuss the import made by verbatium in 2008: > >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/569055 > >>> (...and other similar changesets) > >>> > >>> There are two issues with that import: > >>> 1. Unknown data source with unknown license (probably it was a Garmin map > >> judging by the Type=0x13 tag) > >>> 2. Poor quality of the data. If you see a building distorted like this: > >> http://svimik.com/verbatiumimport1.png > >>> - you can be sure it's verbatium's. Maybe it was OK in 2008, but in 2019 > we > >> have much better options. > >>> > >>> What can be done: > >>> 1. Remove all buildings which geometry and tags were not edited since the > >> initial import. For the tags the following exceptions can be made because > they > >> were automatic edits: > >>> - User xybot has fixed the tag typo (buildung=yes) in the initial import > and > >> added its own tag (created_by=xybot) > >>> - User juhanjuku has removed the Type=0x13 and created_by=xybot tags > >>> - User SviMik_import has imported the address tags to these buildings from > >> the Maa-amet database (nothing that can't be imported again) > >>> 2. Proceed with the Maa-amet building import as usual > >>> > >>> It will solve: > >>> 1. The license issue (if there is any) > >>> 2. The quality issue (if you agree there is an issue) > >>> 3. Will update the map in general, for example the demolished buildings > will > >> be removed from OSM. > >>> > >>> For buildings which geometry was changed by other contributors after the > >> initial import - we can assume both license and quality issues were solved > >> since they no longer contain the imported geometry. I know it's a grey > field, > >> and I'm not sure it works like that, but at least these buildings do have > some > >> excuse to stay. > >>> > >>> For buildings which geometry was NOT changed, but some POI tags were added > - > >> let them stay for now and discuss it later if needed. I suspect it will be > a > >> rare case, but the exact number is unknown right now. > >>> > >>> Questions: > >>> 1. Has anyone else digged into the issue, maybe asked verbatium himself? > >>> 2. Can anyone confirm that the import indeed has the license problem? > >>> 3. Is the proposed plan good? (in case if you agree that it needs to be > >> fixed) > >>> > >>> -- > >>> SviMik > >>>
Re: [Talk-ee] verbatium buiding import discussion
These txt reports with IDs are not too visual, can you create any renderable file for josm (.osm for example) or screenshot to show the community what it really means? Are the building under question random or somehow in specific areas etc. I dont know if there is any "test osm server” for such experiments nowadays somewhere, probably not. Jaak > On 24 Sep 2019, at 07:50, SviMik wrote: > > I have analyzed the largest verbatium's import (changesets 591093, 579407, > 572107, 569277, 569055 (ways) + 561094, 559707, 558636, 558056, 557568, > 557358, 557193, 556899 (nodes only)), which was made in 2008. That covers > 86.7% of all his edits. > The import was covering Tallinn, Saue and Maardu. Turned out verbatium wasn't > particulary active outside Harjumaa. > There were total 67813 ways imported, 9032 of them are already deleted by > other editors, and 17878 were changed either in geometry or tags* department > (15529 has a geometry change, and 5077 has a tag change), which leaves 40903 > buildings for deletion. > * I did not count the following tags because they are part of my imports > anyway: addr:city, addr:country, addr:housenumber, addr:street, maaamet:ETAK, > maaamet:orig_tunnus, source, source:addr, addr2:* > * If some change was reverted I do not count it as a change, because I only > compare the first and the last version > > Here is the list of ways for deletion: > http://svimik.com/verbatium_import1_ways_unchanged1.txt > > Here is the full report for all the 67813 ways: > http://svimik.com/verbatium_import1_ways1.csv > > Full list of his changesets: > http://svimik.com/verbatium_changesets.xls > > Currently, the bbox of his changesets has 91324 buildings, which means... > We're gonna delete 44.79% of Saue-Tallinn-Maardu buildings. That gonna be > interesting. Should we split it by 10k for example? Or just start with Maardu > and see what happens? > > > Воскресенье, 15 сентября 2019, 9:42 +03:00 от "Jaak Laineste" > : >> Hoi, >> >> Jah, need peaks kustutama. Enne võiks teha muudatuse analüüsi - kui palju ja >> kus kustutataks, ega mõned linnad kohe väga tühjaks ei jää. >> >> Jaak >> >> p.s. sama asi ka corine impordi osade tag-idega, näiteks põllud (field), need >> on pigem müra kui info kaardil. >> >> >> >>> On 14 Sep 2019, at 15:34, SviMik via Talk-ee >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone! >>> >>> I'd like to discuss the import made by verbatium in 2008: >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/569055 >>> (...and other similar changesets) >>> >>> There are two issues with that import: >>> 1. Unknown data source with unknown license (probably it was a Garmin map >> judging by the Type=0x13 tag) >>> 2. Poor quality of the data. If you see a building distorted like this: >> http://svimik.com/verbatiumimport1.png >>> - you can be sure it's verbatium's. Maybe it was OK in 2008, but in 2019 we >> have much better options. >>> >>> What can be done: >>> 1. Remove all buildings which geometry and tags were not edited since the >> initial import. For the tags the following exceptions can be made because >> they >> were automatic edits: >>> - User xybot has fixed the tag typo (buildung=yes) in the initial import and >> added its own tag (created_by=xybot) >>> - User juhanjuku has removed the Type=0x13 and created_by=xybot tags >>> - User SviMik_import has imported the address tags to these buildings from >> the Maa-amet database (nothing that can't be imported again) >>> 2. Proceed with the Maa-amet building import as usual >>> >>> It will solve: >>> 1. The license issue (if there is any) >>> 2. The quality issue (if you agree there is an issue) >>> 3. Will update the map in general, for example the demolished buildings will >> be removed from OSM. >>> >>> For buildings which geometry was changed by other contributors after the >> initial import - we can assume both license and quality issues were solved >> since they no longer contain the imported geometry. I know it's a grey field, >> and I'm not sure it works like that, but at least these buildings do have >> some >> excuse to stay. >>> >>> For buildings which geometry was NOT changed, but some POI tags were added - >> let them stay for now and discuss it later if needed. I suspect it will be a >> rare case, but the exact number is unknown right now. >>> >>> Questions: >>> 1. Has anyone else digged into the issue, maybe asked verbatium himself? >>> 2. Can anyone confirm that the import indeed has the license problem? >>> 3. Is the proposed plan good? (in case if you agree that it needs to be >> fixed) >>> >>> -- >>> SviMik >>> ___ >>> Talk-ee mailing list >>> Talk-ee@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ee >> >> > > > -- > Svjatoslav Mikhailov ___ Talk-ee mailing list Talk-ee@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ee
Re: [Talk-ee] Maa-amet Tase 6 (maaüksuse nimi) – addr:place või addr:housename?
There is a wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Et:Key:addr ., I think it is basically tase 5: housename, tase 6: housenumber if I get the question right. Feel free to enhance the wiki page, not everyone reads talk-ee, but wiki is more official doc :) Jaak > On 24 Sep 2019, at 17:51, SviMik via Talk-ee > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a tagging puzzle here. Maa-amet classifies address parts in the > following way: > > Tase 3 – asustusüksus ja linnaosa > Tase 4 – väikekoht > Tase 5 – liikluspind (tänav) > Tase 6 – maaüksuse nimi > Tase 7 – aadressi number > > The problem is, that many buildings in Estonia do not have Tase 5 (street > name), but instead have Tase 6 (lot name) and may or may not have Tase 7 > (housenumber) at the same time. > > According to OSM wiki, addr:place is "part of an address which refers to the > name of some territorial zone". > Looks perfect so far, "the name of some territorial zone" is literally > "maaüksuse nimi". > But... > 1. addr:place requires place=* node or area to be mapped too, which is not > really doable for every land lot. > 2. I'm already using addr:place for Tase 4 (väikekoht, aiandusühistu, etc) > which fits better for this role. > > We could use addr:housename for this instead. > Indeed, Tase 6 is often used as a replacement for the street+number scheme, > and in most cases is literally the property name. > But... > 1. Sometimes Tase 6 comes with Tase 7 (housenumber). I'm not sure if > addr:housename can be used together with addr:housenumber, the addr:housename > sounds like it must be the final address part. > > Examples with house number: > > Harju maakond;Kuusalu vald;Leesi küla;Kasemäe;1 > Harju maakond;Kuusalu vald;Leesi küla;Kasemäe;2 > - here Kasemäe is tase6, not street (tase5), but it still uses house > numbering. This example looks like addr:place. > > Lääne-Viru maakond;Kadrina vald;Arbavere küla;Palkoja baas > Harju maakond;Kuusalu vald;Vihasoo küla;Pumbamaja > Harju maakond;Anija vald;Härmakosu küla;Härmakosu tehnopark > - here the last part is tase6 too. They don't have house numbers, and these > examles do look like addr:housename. > > So, the questions is: where exactly do I put the Maa-amet "Tase 6" address > part in OSM tagging scheme? > And is it OK to use addr:housename together with addr:housenumber? > > -- > SviMik > ___ > Talk-ee mailing list > Talk-ee@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ee ___ Talk-ee mailing list Talk-ee@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ee
[Talk-ee] Maa-amet Tase 6 (maaüksuse nimi) – addr:place või addr:housename?
Hi all, I have a tagging puzzle here. Maa-amet classifies address parts in the following way: Tase 3 – asustusüksus ja linnaosa Tase 4 – väikekoht Tase 5 – liikluspind (tänav) Tase 6 – maaüksuse nimi Tase 7 – aadressi number The problem is, that many buildings in Estonia do not have Tase 5 (street name), but instead have Tase 6 (lot name) and may or may not have Tase 7 (housenumber) at the same time. According to OSM wiki, addr:place is "part of an address which refers to the name of some territorial zone". Looks perfect so far, "the name of some territorial zone" is literally "maaüksuse nimi". But... 1. addr:place requires place=* node or area to be mapped too, which is not really doable for every land lot. 2. I'm already using addr:place for Tase 4 (väikekoht, aiandusühistu, etc) which fits better for this role. We could use addr:housename for this instead. Indeed, Tase 6 is often used as a replacement for the street+number scheme, and in most cases is literally the property name. But... 1. Sometimes Tase 6 comes with Tase 7 (housenumber). I'm not sure if addr:housename can be used together with addr:housenumber, the addr:housename sounds like it must be the final address part. Examples with house number: Harju maakond;Kuusalu vald;Leesi küla;Kasemäe;1 Harju maakond;Kuusalu vald;Leesi küla;Kasemäe;2 - here Kasemäe is tase6, not street (tase5), but it still uses house numbering. This example looks like addr:place. Lääne-Viru maakond;Kadrina vald;Arbavere küla;Palkoja baas Harju maakond;Kuusalu vald;Vihasoo küla;Pumbamaja Harju maakond;Anija vald;Härmakosu küla;Härmakosu tehnopark - here the last part is tase6 too. They don't have house numbers, and these examles do look like addr:housename. So, the questions is: where exactly do I put the Maa-amet "Tase 6" address part in OSM tagging scheme? And is it OK to use addr:housename together with addr:housenumber? -- SviMik ___ Talk-ee mailing list Talk-ee@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ee
