Re: [Talk-GB] postcode mapping (was Re: Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only))

[Andrzej]

Only postbox reference numbers, which are somewhat related to local postcodes 
(share the first few characters). It may still be useful to add such quest to 
StreetComplete.

Retail businesses and amenities tend to advertise their full addresses, 
including a postcode but there is no rule to that.

Best regards, 
ndrw6 


On 30 July 2019 15:19:46 CEST, Mateusz Konieczny  
wrote:
>
>
>
>30 Jul 2019, 11:56 by nd...@redhazel.co.uk:
>
>> 10M addresses that have yet to be surveyed.
>>
>Is it typical for post codes to be posted like housenumbers? Either on
>buildings or postboxes?
>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_postcodes
> is not
>clear,
>http://www.livingwithdragons.com/2009/06/my-postbox-obsession
> suggest
>that it may be true.
>
>I am asking as it may be a suitable quest for StreetComplete.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only)

[Andrzej]

On 19 July 2019 17:58:58 CEST, Devonshire  wrote:
>
>I know that Robert is sincere in his views but the classic "don't add
>data to OSM because it will spoil someone else's enjoyment" always
>makes me chuckle. In most parts of the country the idea that the
>current cohort of mappers can add accurate address data by hand is pie
>in the sky.
>
>There are certainly issues with adding these postcodes to buildings in
>dense town centres but in those areas you can often find postcodes by
>other means anyway. I think adding postcodes to residential or rural
>areas from these datasets is fine but I personally wouldn't add them
>unless I had some on-the-ground knowledge of the area.

I've been thinking about it during my summer holidays (much needed step back). 
I strongly encourage others to add as many postcodes as they can, both manually 
and from Code-point open/ONS in low density areas. The latter are the only 
realistic and legal way of bringing OSM to a state where users of e.g. Maps.me 
or OsmAnd can expect a search for a postcode to usually work rather than 
usually fail. This is in my opinion the single most important issue individual 
British OSM users (who can't or don't want to purchase a Code-point license) 
are facing now. Having all houses tagged with postcodes, house numbers and 
street names is of course a noble goal but we are talking about 10M addresses 
that have yet to be surveyed. In contrast, a single searchable postcode is all 
most users need for navigation and this information is readily available now. 

I will keep updating my osm files on Github and support other mappers but I 
will not do more bulk postcode mapping myself. Having added well over 50k 
unique postcodes I am happy with the state of Cambridgeshire and surrounding 
areas. But doing that for the rest of the country would take a lot of effort 
and frankly speaking I need to readjust my priorities. 

Best regards, 
ndrw6 


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only)

[Andrzej]

On 19 July 2019 09:58:52 BST, "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" 
 wrote:
> 
>I thus have to object not just to the new proposal but also any
>continuation of the previous work to add single postcodes to buildings
>under the centroid.

Thank you for your opinion, Robert. I will suspend adding postcodes from 
Code-point Open.

Do others agree with it or would you rather have more postcodes in database 
first and work on accuracy and completeness afterwards? 

Indeed, Code-Point Open is less than ideal, the issues are almost always caused 
by lack of differentiation between residential and "large user" postcodes. On 
the other hand, it is the only legal source of postcodes we have, other than 
local knowledge, but the latter is realistically limited to a dozen or so 
postcodes per mapper. Businesses website could also be OK but they are usually 
copyrighted. Derived databases, like FHRS, are generally not OK, a unless also 
permitted by Royal Mail.

It's not that I don't care about complete addresses either. But my spare time 
is limited, and I feel I can contribute more by adding missing postcodes in a 
town vs adding complete addresses in a few streets. Others may have different 
priorities. 

I disagree that having data from Code-Point Open outside OSM is sufficient. 
Excluding surveyed information, everything in OSM is already publicly available 
(or should be). Yet, we all keep using and working on OSM. Besides, how to 
extend or combine information without adding it first?

Best regards, 
ndrw6

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only)

[Andrzej]

These should reasonably easy to remove from the dataset, easier than checking 
for existing addresses. Thanks for the suggestion. 

Best regards,
ndrw6 

On 17 July 2019 18:09:39 BST, David Woolley  wrote:
>On 16/07/2019 22:19, ndrw6 wrote:
>> 3. Use a collation plugin to collate both datasets with "centroid 
>> distance" set to "< 15m". The condition is there to apply postcodes
>only 
>> to small buildings in direct vicinity of the codepoint centroid.
>
>This algorithm will apply PO Box number postcodes to some buildings 
>adjacent to the post office.  Similarly for other high use post codes, 
>which are close to residential areas.
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only)

[Andrzej]

I will try to avoid adding postcodes in these cases. Basically, narrow down the 
list of postcodes to add to these that don't have any neighbouring objects with 
addr: tags.

Best regards,
ndrw6


On 17 July 2019 12:10:32 BST, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>17 Jul 2019, 12:58 by nd...@redhazel.co.uk:
>
>> I haven't seen such guidelines for the UK myself. In general people
>prefer having address tags on buildings. Separate address points are
>more of a stop gap solution until building shapes are sufficiently
>accurate. 
>>
>In that case maybe it would be a good idea to merge existing
>address-only nodes
>with building outlines as the first step?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only)

[Andrzej]

I haven't seen such guidelines for the UK myself. In general people prefer 
having address tags on buildings. Separate address points are more of a stop 
gap solution until building shapes are sufficiently accurate. 

An exception is addresses on entrances, which some mappers seem to prefer. I 
can simply avoid such areas. 

Some clarifications:
- Code-Point Open contains only one data entry (point) per postcode. It is 
located near the centroid and snapped to a nearest building (technically 
delivery point). So the scope is fairly small. 
- This is automatic editing, not an import. I can skip areas that use different 
addressing conventions. There is still over a hundred thousands of simple cases 
that can save a lot of manual work.
- I ignore postcodes that are already in OSM near that location. So it is an 
additive process (no changes or deletions) 
- Manual methods are not perfect either, due to Code-Point Open limitations. 
But it is still the only legal source of postcodes in bulk we have (licensed by 
the owner).

Best regards, 
ndrw6


On 17 July 2019 10:07:52 BST, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
>
>
>16 lip 2019, 23:19 od nd...@redhazel.co.uk:
>
>> added as separate points rather than tags (automated edit will add
>addr:postcode tags directly to the building, this is what I chose to do
>manually as well)
>>
>Duplicating address data or adding
>part to a separate node and part to
>building outline seems incorrect to be.
>
>At least in Poland address imports
>are obligated to handle this situation.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

Thank you for the discussion so far. I've been thinking about a solution for 
tagging localities that would work for both mappers who want to tag locality 
types and those who don't. Current proposals (addr:town|village and 
addr:locality|sublocality) are two distinct and incompatible tagging schemes so 
reaching a consensus may be impossible. 

How about tagging localities as addr:locality|sublocality _and_ 
addr:locality|sublocality:type=city|town|suburb|village|hamlet|campus, so they 
can be added separately and at different times? 

Best regards,
Andrzej 

On 28 January 2019 04:40:26 GMT+08:00, Andrzej  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>When working on post codes in East Anglia I realised the current
>address tagging scheme is insufficient for even fairly basic scenarios.
>I have already discussed the issues with some of the most experienced
>mappers and like to bring these issues to your attention. Robert has
>summarised his ideas in
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping
>
>The bottom line is, I would like to be tag commonly used addresses
>without losing information and without resorting to addr:full. 
>
>Issues:
>1. Post towns (most pressing one because there is a lot of confusion
>around it). The UK is fairly unique in that not every town is a post
>town. This makes it impossible to tag e.g. Station Road, Histon,
>Cambridge CB24 9LF. 
>Wiki recommends addr:city to be used for tagging post towns (Cambridge)
>but then how do we tag Histon? 
>- Robert recommends sticking to the current meaning of addr:city and
>using addr:town and addr:village for town and village names, which,
>although not in wiki, are already being used in the UK. I like this
>solution because it is very explicit in what each addr: key means and
>it doesn't redefine addr:city. 
>- SK53 prefers using addr:city for everything (towns, even villages)
>and either not tagging post towns (they can be seen as a an internal
>detail of a closed Royal Mail database) or using a new tag for it, like
>addr:post_town. It is a simple solution, results in Histon being called
>Histon and not Cambridge (without introducing new tags for town and
>village names) and is commonly used. It is also a bit confusing (what
>exactly is a city?) and I think we we should at least support tagging
>post towns. 
>
>Key questions:
>a) addr:city for post towns or towns and villages? 
>b) how to rag remaining information (respectively, towns and villages
>or post towns,) 
>
>2. Tagging addresses within campuses, business parks etc. There is
>addr:place but it is supposed to be used instead of addr:street. Again,
>Robert has a fairly decent proposal for that using addr:place or
>addr:locality and addr:parentstreet. Please comment. 
>
>2a. should buildings in campuses be tagged with
>addr:buildingnumber/name or addr:unit? I would prefer
>buildingname/number (as they are often subdivided) but these seem to be
>associated with addr:street. 
>
>3. Similar to (2) but for buildings. Tagging buildings that have e.g. a
>single name but multiple house numbers? 
>
>Best regards, 
>ndrw6
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

Hi Will,

These are very good examples, I wasn't aware of such places. They would indeed 
best fit addr:locality. How about using addr:locality together with 
addr:town/suburb/village/hamlet then? Having multiple well defined tags is good 
- they add useful information. We are not designing an internal PAF database 
for RM - OSM is supposed to be used for many different purposes, some of which 
we can't even predict. From this point of view, the richer and the more precise 
the language the better. 

I want to clarify what I meant by "almost offensive". We are asking people to 
tag their towns with names of towns they don't relate to, and to add insult to 
injury we want them to tag their own towns as "localities". At best people will 
ignore this scheme, at worst they will get very upset. In my discussions about 
this topic people felt very strongly about their home towns. 

Best regards, 
Andrzej 



On 29 January 2019 00:08:11 GMT+08:00, Will Phillips  wrote:
>
>> Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to
>addr:town 
>> and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address 
>> where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but 
>> locality sounds almost offensive. 
>To me 'locality' just sounds neutral. I don't particularly object to 
>addr:town and addr:village, but it does mean we end up with at least 
>three tags rather than one, because in cities suburbs often don't fit 
>easily into those tags, hence the use of addr:suburb.
>
>> Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names
>are 
>> written before street names, not after them.
>In my experience this often isn't true, perhaps look at more examples. 
>It is relatively common for business park and industrial estate names
>to 
>appear after street names.
>
>Examples:
>Lenton Lane Industrial Estate, Nottingham
>http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.17632=52.93295=OSM,1,15=%22Lenton%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22=SearchOpendataJson=1
>
>Trent Lane Industrial Estate, Castle Donington
>http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.34152=52.85018=OSM,1,15=%22Trent%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22=SearchOpendataJson=1
>
>Sherwood [Business] Park, Annesley,
>http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.25353=53.07037=OSM,1,15=%22Sherwood%20Park%22=SearchOpendataJson=1
>
>Regards,
>Will
>
>
>
>On 28/01/2019 15:06, Andrzej wrote:
>> Is it possible to use addr:locality for both towns and villages? That
>
>> could simplify things quite a bit and I have yet to see an address 
>> that needs a post town and two levels of localities below.
>>
>> Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to
>addr:town 
>> and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address 
>> where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but 
>> locality sounds almost offensive.
>>
>> Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names
>are 
>> written before street names, not after them. They're IMO what RM
>calls 
>> "dependent thoroughfares". For these I would simply use addr:place, 
>> which can already be combined with addr:housename and 
>> addr:housenumber. Alternatively we could make a new tag like
>addr:campus.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Andrzej
>>
>>
>> On 28 January 2019 20:36:24 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Will,
>>
>> On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For
>>> this I have usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas
>>> and addr:locality elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to
>>> have just one recommended tag, perhaps addr:locality, because
>>> having addr:town addr:village and addr:suburb seems too
>>> complicated. Eventually it would be good if editing software, in
>>> particular iD, could provide an extra field to enter the
>>> locality, and it would perhaps be easier for that to happen if
>>> there was only one tag. New mappers often seem to have
>difficulty
>>> entering addresses to the form that they wish and I think the
>>> lack of a locality field is part of the reason.
>>>
>>> For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using
>>> addr:sublocality is a possibility, although I wonder whether
>just
>>> sticking with addr:village for this less common situation would
>>> be easier. It depends a bit on whether this tag is only likely
>to
>>> be used for villages and hamlets, or wh

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

Is it possible to use addr:locality for both towns and villages? That could 
simplify things quite a bit and I have yet to see an address that needs a post 
town and two levels of localities below.

Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town and 
addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address where they 
wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but locality sounds almost 
offensive. 

Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names are written 
before street names, not after them. They're IMO what RM calls "dependent 
thoroughfares". For these I would simply use addr:place, which can already be 
combined with addr:housename and addr:housenumber. Alternatively we could make 
a new tag like addr:campus.

Best regards, 
Andrzej 


On 28 January 2019 20:36:24 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale  
wrote:
>Hi Will, 
>
>On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For this
>I have usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas and
>addr:locality elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to have just
>one recommended tag, perhaps addr:locality, because having addr:town
>addr:village and addr:suburb seems too complicated. Eventually it would
>be good if editing software, in particular iD, could provide an extra
>field to enter the locality, and it would perhaps be easier for that to
>happen if there was only one tag. New mappers often seem to have
>difficulty entering addresses to the form that they wish and I think
>the lack of a locality field is part of the reason. 
>> 
>> For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using
>addr:sublocality is a possibility, although I wonder whether just
>sticking with addr:village for this less common situation would be
>easier. It depends a bit on whether this tag is only likely to be used
>for villages and hamlets, or whether it might be useful in other cases.
>For example, sometimes names of industrial estates appear in addresses
>in a similar way to sublocalities.
>
>I don't see any advantage in "addr:village" and "addr:suburb" just
>because they sound familiar or are existing tags. What we are
>discussing
>here is a UK-specific solution. The (Double) Dependent Localities may
>or
>may not correspond to what people perceive as a "village" or "suburb".
>In the quoted example, "Cambridge Science Park" is IMHO neither. 
>
>> I only use addr:city for post towns, although I recognise not all
>mappers agree with this, and I appreciate there are arguments both
>ways. I was thinking about this recently when adding addresses in Lees
>near Derby. The post town is Ashbourne, but this seems slightly
>incongruous because the village is much nearer to Derby. I chose not to
>include addr:city and only used addr:locality for the village name.
>
>> I feel the main argument in favour of using post towns for addr:city
>is that it helps to keep the data consistent because what to use often
>becomes confusing otherwise. To use the example of Lees I mentioned
>above, it would be easy to end up with a situation where addr:city
>contained perhaps four values if the data was entered by different
>people without any guide as to what to use (the most likely
>possibilities being Lees, Dalby Lees, Derby or Ashbourne).
>
>> In cases where local residents consider Royal Mail's choice of post
>town to be contentious, usually because it is miles from where they
>live, it might be sensible to recognise addr:posttown as an
>alternative.
>
>The accepted paradigm is that the address should represent the postal
>address, and not any administrative relationships. As you will know RM
>have their own particular ideas of the geography of the UK, all done
>for
>their own convenience. It would certainly avoid some confusion if we
>used addr:posttown instead of addr:city.
>
>Regards, 
>Colin
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

Hi Colin,

Dependent and doubly dependent localities are technical terms and without 
having access to PAF most mappers wouldn't know which one to use. And if they 
did, that could be considered a copyright infringement. Also, it just doesn't 
sound right. No one asks "which dependent locality do you live in". I agree it 
matches PAF very well, though.

I agree towns and villages are less precise but since we already have them as 
admin levels that would be the easiest and most intuitive solution. We already 
have addr:suburb and addr:hamlet so that would be a natural extension, and one 
which is already in use in the UK. 

I agree with you on addr:parentstreet. The issue here is that house numbers and 
names are associated with either addr:street or addr:place. So if we were to 
introduce addr:substreet or addr:campus that convention would have to be 
changed. For this reason I suggested using addr:place as a dependent 
thoroughfare.This would only require allowing both street and place to be 
defined together.

Best regards,
Andrzej 

On 28 January 2019 07:05:40 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale  
wrote:
>Hi Andrezej,
>
>I would oppose addr:village for the Dependent Locality as it invites
>incorrect usage. There is no reason to overload an existing tag with a
>different meaning to its current usage. In the UK, a village is not
>simply a neat subdivision of a town. I think addr:locality and
>addr:sublocality would be better, as this would (correctly) imply a
>possibly fuzzy boundary which possibly crosses formal admin boundaries.
>
>
>Regarding streets/thoroughfares, the main thoroughfare is addr:street -
>that is clear and established usage. We are looking for a solution for
>a
>"substreet" and moving the main thoroughfare up to "addr:parentstreet"
>to make room for the dependent thoroughfare in "addr:street" feels
>wrong
>as it gives addr:street different semantics under some conditions. Note
>also that the word "thoroughfare" has probably been carefully chosen to
>allow application to things other than simple streets with adresses
>neatly on each side. I would also instinctively expect a campus to be
>more of a locality (subarea of a Town) than a super-street. Maybe
>someone with access to PAF data can see what data is in what fields for
>some address on the CSP. 
>
>It wouldn't surprise me if subbuildings were used for "Unit 1",
>"Building A" etc. That doesn't sound/feel at all unreasonable. 
>
>On 2019-01-27 23:27, Andrzej wrote:
>
>> Hi Colin,
>> 
>> This is broadly in line with Robert's proposals. However, it raises
>questions about:
>> 
>> 1. tagging "dependent localities" - they can be towns or villages.
>Are you happy with addr:town, addr:village for this purpose? Reaching
>consensus on that would be a major step forward. 
>> 
>> 2. Tagging "dependent throughfares". I think they could be used to
>tag "building name, Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge".
>This could be addr:place except in OSM addr:place should not be
>combined with addr:street. Or, like in Robert's proposal,
>addr:street+addr:parentstreet. Except that CSP is a campus, not a
>street. 
>> 
>> 3. Tagging subbuildings. Addr:unit is available but is fairly limited
>(unit names?) and vague. 
>> 
>> 4. PO Box - I haven't thought about it. Is that something that we
>would include at all in a geographical database? Perhaps if it is
>associated with a business that has a known location but uses PO Box as
>its address? 
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Andrzej 
>> 
>> On 28 January 2019 05:21:36 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale
> wrote: 
>> 
>> Assuming the post code is seen in OSM as a way of addressing post (as
>opposed to a geographic subdivision or an indication of location) then
>I suggest following Royal Mail's address structure, which can be seen
>in the description of the Postcode Address File on Wikipedia [1]. If we
>cannot map a full-format address onto OSM tags, we need a description
>of how to deal with this (i.e. which bits to leave out or combine). 
>> 
>> I have taken the table from wikipedia and added a column for the OSM
>tags where known. Most of these fields are actually optional, or not
>always present, depending on the exact address in question. 
>> 
>> How do we fill in the blanks? 
>> 
>> ELEMENT
>> FIELD NAME
>> DESCRIPTION
>> MAX LENGTH
>> OSM
>> 
>> Organisation
>> Organisation Name
>> 
>> 60
>> n/a
>> 
>> Department Name
>> 
>> 60
>> n/a
>> 
>> Premises
>> Sub Building Name
>> 
>> 30
>> 
>> Building Name
>> 
>

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

Perhaps OSM UK could step in and endorse address tagging practices once a 
consensus is reached? In the end it does not matter what tag names we use as 
long as the whole scheme is consistent and rich enough to describe common use 
cases. 

So far, I see addr:city=posttown is a popular solution, which I am happy about. 
But it would have to go with something like addr:town/village to denote 
dependent localities. Otherwise we won't be able to convince mappers from 
smaller towns to follow this convention. 

Another idea, if we allowed addr:place and addr:street to be used together, 
addr:place could be used as "dependent thoroughfare" with no(?) other changes. 

Best wishes, 
Andrzej 



On 28 January 2019 06:48:11 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale  
wrote:
>David, thanks for offering some updates. 
>
>By the way, I am not asking questions because I personally want the
>answers - I am fully aware of how these things work. And because of
>that, and because OSM tries to model reality, I believe we need some
>kind of anchor-point for our thinking in order to converge on a proper
>solution. In many countries postcodes/zip codes are associated with
>geographic areas; the UK, as frequently happens, uses a different
>paradigm. We need a clear statement of the intention for the addresses
>in OSM, and my belief is that they represent postal addresses as per
>the
>PAF. PO Box numbers are not applicable to OSM, as they cannot be
>related
>to a location useful in OSM. The discussion is just about Dependent
>Locaiity, Double Dependent Locality, and Dependent Thoroughfare. If we
>can define what OSM tag should be used for these three fields, we have
>a
>model which is sufficient for all UK addresses. 
>
>Of course, it is an option to decide to NOT represent this level of
>detail in OSM. In that case, expect mappers to make up their own
>solutions, and this discussion to resurface every few months. 
>
>Next iteration: 
>
>   ELEMENT
>   FIELD NAME
>   DESCRIPTION
>   MAX LENGTH
>   OSM
>
>   Organisation
>   Organisation Name
>
>   60
>   n/a
>
>   Department Name
>
>   60
>   n/a
>
>   Premises
>   Sub Building Name
>
>   30
>   addr:unit
>
>   Building Name
>
>   50
>   addr:housename
>
>   Building Number
>
>   4
>   addr:housenumber
>
>   Thoroughfare
>   Dependent Thoroughfare Name
>
>   60
>
>   Dependent Thoroughfare Descriptor
>
>   20
>
>   Thoroughfare Name
>   Street
>   60
>   addr:street
>
>   Thoroughfare Descriptor
>
>   20
>   addr:street
>
>   Locality
>   Double Dependent Locality
>   Small villages
>   35
>
>   Dependent Locality
>
>   35
>
>   Post town
>
>   30
>   addr:city
>
>   Postcode
>   Postcode
>
>   7
>   addr:postcode
>
>   PO Box
>   PO Box
>
>   6
>n/a
>
>On 2019-01-27 23:17, David Woolley wrote:
>
>> On 27/01/2019 21:21, Colin Smale wrote: 
>> 
>>> Organisation Organisation Name 60 n/a
>>> Department Name 60 n/a
>>> Premises Sub Building Name 30
>> 
>> addr:unit
>> 
>>> Building Name 50 addr:housename
>>> Building Number 4 addr:housenumber
>>> Thoroughfare Dependent Thoroughfare Name 60
>> 
>> This is the one that actually normally causes questions.  It is quite
>common to have named terraces, and to have runs of maisonettes numbered
>within a name.
>> 
>>> Dependent Thoroughfare Descriptor 20 Thoroughfare Name
>Street 60 addr:street
>>> Thoroughfare Descriptor 20 Locality Double Dependent
>Locality Small villages 35 Dependent Locality 35 Post
>town 30 addr:city
>> 
>> Firstly, addr in OSM is generally postal, not geographical.  As
>indicated elsewhere containment (or is_in) define the geographical
>place.
>> 
>> Secondly, in practice the only parts of the address you need are the
>detailed destination point code and the post code.  However, I
>discovered that the p

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

On 28 January 2019 06:17:04 GMT+08:00, David Woolley 
 wrote:
>On 27/01/2019 21:21, Colin Smale wrote:
>> Organisation Organisation Name   60  n/a
>> Department Name  60  n/a
>> Premises Sub Building Name   30  
>
>addr:unit

What about the Sub Building Name? 

>> Building Name50  addr:housename
>> Building Number  4   addr:housenumber
>> Thoroughfare Dependent Thoroughfare Name 60  
>
>This is the one that actually normally causes questions.  It is quite 
>common to have named terraces, and to have runs of maisonettes numbered
>within a name.

Good point.I would also add campuses in this category. Although I am not 100% 
sure if that's how they are classified in PAF. 

>> Dependent Thoroughfare Descriptor20  
>> Thoroughfare NameStreet  60  addr:street
>> Thoroughfare Descriptor  20  
>> Locality Double Dependent Locality   Small villages  35  
>> Dependent Locality   35  
>> Post town30  addr:city
>
>Firstly, addr in OSM is generally postal, not geographical.  As 
>indicated elsewhere containment (or is_in) define the geographical
>place. 

True, but full address would still include extra information. We can infer 
addr:country and addr:county from admin areas but everything else should be 
_possible_ to tag. 

>Secondly, in practice the only parts of the address you need are the 
>detailed destination point code and the post code.  However, I 
>discovered that the postie on the beat also needs the street name to 
>avoid having to look it up from the postcode.

It should still be possible to encode a typical full address with tags. 
Sometimes people will want extract the full address from OSM, sometimes they 
will want to search for a part of it. Even if someone is searching for a house 
number and a postcode alone it is useful to see if e.g. a street name of the 
result matches expectations. 

Best wishes,
Andrzej

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

At low level (commercial areas, academic campuses, hospitals) that's not really 
the case. They are not as formalised as admin areas.

Best wishes,
Andrzej 

On 28 January 2019 05:46:23 GMT+08:00, Gareth L  wrote:
>I’d hope these would inherit from whatever the address is enclosed in.
>
>On 27 Jan 2019, at 21:22, Colin Smale
>mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:
>
>
>Assuming the post code is seen in OSM as a way of addressing post (as
>opposed to a geographic subdivision or an indication of location) then
>I suggest following Royal Mail's address structure, which can be seen
>in the description of the Postcode Address File on Wikipedia [1]. If we
>cannot map a full-format address onto OSM tags, we need a description
>of how to deal with this (i.e. which bits to leave out or combine).
>
>I have taken the table from wikipedia and added a column for the OSM
>tags where known. Most of these fields are actually optional, or not
>always present, depending on the exact address in question.
>
>How do we fill in the blanks?
>
>
>Element Field name  Description Max length  OSM
>OrganisationOrganisation Name   60  n/a
>Department Name 60  n/a
>PremisesSub Building Name   30
>Building Name   50  addr:housename
>Building Number 4   addr:housenumber
>ThoroughfareDependent Thoroughfare Name 60
>Dependent Thoroughfare Descriptor   20
>Thoroughfare Name   Street  60  addr:street
>Thoroughfare Descriptor 20
>LocalityDouble Dependent Locality   Small villages  35
>Dependent Locality  35
>Post town   30  addr:city
>PostcodePostcode7   addr:postcode
>PO Box  PO Box  6
>
>
>
>[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcode_Address_File
>
>
>
>
>On 2019-01-27 21:40, Andrzej wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>When working on post codes in East Anglia I realised the current
>address tagging scheme is insufficient for even fairly basic scenarios.
>I have already discussed the issues with some of the most experienced
>mappers and like to bring these issues to your attention. Robert has
>summarised his ideas in
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping
>
>The bottom line is, I would like to be tag commonly used addresses
>without losing information and without resorting to addr:full.
>
>Issues:
>1. Post towns (most pressing one because there is a lot of confusion
>around it). The UK is fairly unique in that not every town is a post
>town. This makes it impossible to tag e.g. Station Road, Histon,
>Cambridge CB24 9LF.
>Wiki recommends addr:city to be used for tagging post towns (Cambridge)
>but then how do we tag Histon?
>- Robert recommends sticking to the current meaning of addr:city and
>using addr:town and addr:village for town and village names, which,
>although not in wiki, are already being used in the UK. I like this
>solution because it is very explicit in what each addr: key means and
>it doesn't redefine addr:city.
>- SK53 prefers using addr:city for everything (towns, even villages)
>and either not tagging post towns (they can be seen as a an internal
>detail of a closed Royal Mail database) or using a new tag for it, like
>addr:post_town. It is a simple solution, results in Histon being called
>Histon and not Cambridge (without introducing new tags for town and
>village names) and is commonly used. It is also a bit confusing (what
>exactly is a city?) and I think we we should at least support tagging
>post towns.
>
>Key questions:
>a) addr:city for post towns or towns and villages?
>b) how to rag remaining information (respectively, towns and villages
>or post towns,)
>
>2. Tagging addresses within campuses, business parks etc. There is
>addr:place but it is supposed to be used instead of addr:street. Again,
>Robert has a fairly decent proposal for that using addr:place or
>addr:locality and addr:parentstreet. Please comment.
>
>2a. should buildings in campuses be tagged with
>addr:buildingnumber/name or addr:unit? I would prefer
>buildingname/number (as they are often subdivided) but these seem to be
>associated with addr:street.
>
>3. Similar to (2) but for buildings. Tagging buildings that have e.g. a
>single name but multiple house numbers?
>
>Best regards,
>ndrw6
>
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

Hi Colin,

This is broadly in line with Robert's proposals. However, it raises questions 
about:

1. tagging "dependent localities" - they can be towns or villages. Are you 
happy with addr:town, addr:village for this purpose? Reaching consensus on that 
would be a major step forward. 

2. Tagging "dependent throughfares". I think they could be used to tag 
"building name, Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge". This could be 
addr:place except in OSM addr:place should not be combined with addr:street. 
Or, like in Robert's proposal, addr:street+addr:parentstreet. Except that CSP 
is a campus, not a street. 

3. Tagging subbuildings. Addr:unit is available but is fairly limited (unit 
names?) and vague. 

4. PO Box - I haven't thought about it. Is that something that we would include 
at all in a geographical database? Perhaps if it is associated with a business 
that has a known location but uses PO Box as its address? 

Best wishes,
Andrzej 

On 28 January 2019 05:21:36 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale  
wrote:
>Assuming the post code is seen in OSM as a way of addressing post (as
>opposed to a geographic subdivision or an indication of location) then
>I
>suggest following Royal Mail's address structure, which can be seen in
>the description of the Postcode Address File on Wikipedia [1]. If we
>cannot map a full-format address onto OSM tags, we need a description
>of
>how to deal with this (i.e. which bits to leave out or combine). 
>
>I have taken the table from wikipedia and added a column for the OSM
>tags where known. Most of these fields are actually optional, or not
>always present, depending on the exact address in question. 
>
>How do we fill in the blanks? 
>
>   ELEMENT
>   FIELD NAME
>   DESCRIPTION
>   MAX LENGTH
>   OSM
>
>   Organisation
>   Organisation Name
>
>   60
>   n/a
>
>   Department Name
>
>   60
>   n/a
>
>   Premises
>   Sub Building Name
>
>   30
>
>   Building Name
>
>   50
>   addr:housename
>
>   Building Number
>
>   4
>   addr:housenumber
>
>   Thoroughfare
>   Dependent Thoroughfare Name
>
>   60
>
>   Dependent Thoroughfare Descriptor
>
>   20
>
>   Thoroughfare Name
>   Street
>   60
>   addr:street
>
>   Thoroughfare Descriptor
>
>   20
>
>   Locality
>   Double Dependent Locality
>   Small villages
>   35
>
>   Dependent Locality
>
>   35
>
>   Post town
>
>   30
>   addr:city
>
>   Postcode
>   Postcode
>
>   7
>   addr:postcode
>
>   PO Box
>   PO Box
>
>   6
>
>[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcode_Address_File 
>
>On 2019-01-27 21:40, Andrzej wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> When working on post codes in East Anglia I realised the current
>address tagging scheme is insufficient for even fairly basic scenarios.
>I have already discussed the issues with some of the most experienced
>mappers and like to bring these issues to your attention. Robert has
>summarised his ideas in
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping
>> 
>> The bottom line is, I would like to be tag commonly used addresses
>without losing information and without resorting to addr:full. 
>> 
>> Issues:
>> 1. Post towns (most pressing one because there is a lot of confusion
>around it). The UK is fairly unique in that not every town is a post
>town. This makes it impossible to tag e.g. Station Road, Histon,
>Cambridge CB24 9LF. 
>> Wiki recommends addr:city to be used for tagging post towns
>(Cambridge) but then how do we tag Histon? 
>> - Robert recommends sticking to the current meaning of addr:city and
>using addr:town and addr:village for town and village names, which,
>although not in wiki, are already being used in the UK. I like this
>solution because it is very explicit in what each addr: key means and
>it doesn't redefine addr:city. 
>> - SK53 prefers using addr:city for everything (towns, even villages)
>and either not tagging post towns (they can be seen as a an internal
>detail of a closed Royal Mail database) or using a new tag for it, like
>addr:post_town. It is a simple s

[Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

Hi,

When working on post codes in East Anglia I realised the current address 
tagging scheme is insufficient for even fairly basic scenarios. I have already 
discussed the issues with some of the most experienced mappers and like to 
bring these issues to your attention. Robert has summarised his ideas in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping

The bottom line is, I would like to be tag commonly used addresses without 
losing information and without resorting to addr:full. 

Issues:
1. Post towns (most pressing one because there is a lot of confusion around 
it). The UK is fairly unique in that not every town is a post town. This makes 
it impossible to tag e.g. Station Road, Histon, Cambridge CB24 9LF. 
Wiki recommends addr:city to be used for tagging post towns (Cambridge) but 
then how do we tag Histon? 
- Robert recommends sticking to the current meaning of addr:city and using 
addr:town and addr:village for town and village names, which, although not in 
wiki, are already being used in the UK. I like this solution because it is very 
explicit in what each addr: key means and it doesn't redefine addr:city. 
- SK53 prefers using addr:city for everything (towns, even villages) and either 
not tagging post towns (they can be seen as a an internal detail of a closed 
Royal Mail database) or using a new tag for it, like addr:post_town. It is a 
simple solution, results in Histon being called Histon and not Cambridge 
(without introducing new tags for town and village names) and is commonly used. 
It is also a bit confusing (what exactly is a city?) and I think we we should 
at least support tagging post towns. 

Key questions:
a) addr:city for post towns or towns and villages? 
b) how to rag remaining information (respectively, towns and villages or post 
towns,) 

2. Tagging addresses within campuses, business parks etc. There is addr:place 
but it is supposed to be used instead of addr:street. Again, Robert has a 
fairly decent proposal for that using addr:place or addr:locality and 
addr:parentstreet. Please comment. 

2a. should buildings in campuses be tagged with addr:buildingnumber/name or 
addr:unit? I would prefer buildingname/number (as they are often subdivided) 
but these seem to be associated with addr:street. 

3. Similar to (2) but for buildings. Tagging buildings that have e.g. a single 
name but multiple house numbers? 

Best regards, 
ndrw6
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb