Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Lester Caine]

On 01/02/18 08:58, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On 31 January 2018 at 11:13, Will Phillips  wrote:

I favour using addr:parentstreet rather than addr:substreet for the
following reasons:

+1


Which also then needs addr:street ON the addr:parentstreet as using 
postal_code has the same problem of matching ... OR is that only to be 
used on the buildings ON the substreet ?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 31 January 2018 at 11:13, Will Phillips  wrote:
> I favour using addr:parentstreet rather than addr:substreet for the
> following reasons:

+1

> 1. The majority of OSM data users and tools/services using OSM data don't
> know that either addr:substreet or addr:parentstreet exist. They will
> recognise addr:housenumber and addr:street. Therefore I think the most
> important part of the address should use these tags, which is usually the
> dependent street and number. If someone is searching for an address, I think
> this is usually the part they will enter.
>
> 2. When mapping addresses I consider the addr:housenumber and addr:street to
> go together. Otherwise it is ambiguous, because there is no way of knowing
> whether the number relates to the dependent or parent street. This can get
> very confusing because the same numbers will often be used for addresses
> along the main part of the street and again on any subsidiary parts. If we
> wanted to use addr:substreet without any ambiguity, we would need something
> like addr:substreetnumber as well.
>
> 3. Using addr:substreet is just more confusing. New mappers aren't going to
> understand it. If a street has its own name and is separately numbered, it's
> intuitive to put this into the widely recognised addr:housenumber and
> addr:street tags. I know from surveying a lot of addresses that is difficult
> to guess whether Royal Mail considers a street to be dependent or not: such
> streets often don't look any different from other nearby streets that
> aren't. It's not something mappers should have to worry about in the
> majority of cases.
>
> Just to add, I don't think addr:parentstreet it always the best approach.
> Where a 'dependent street' is say a block of flats without a physically
> separate street, using addr:housename and addr:flats is often simpler.


-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Will Phillips]

On 31/01/2018 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:

Which is the more correct usage here? Do we

a) tag the dependent street as the addr:street, and the main street as 
addr:parentstreet, or should we


b) (following Royal Mail practice as found in the PAF), tag the 
dependent street as a addr:substreet and the main street as addr:street?


My personal preference would be the latter, it's not only consistent 
with official addressing practice but it's also how most people 
perceive these kind of addresses as well. But, on the other hand, most 
map editors are likely to use addr:street for the dependent street, 
simply because the editor UI doesn't make it obvious that 
addr:substreet is a possibility. So it might be simpler to fix these 
by adding addr:parentstreet as necessary rather than trying to get 
everything pedantically correct.


Mark


I favour using addr:parentstreet rather than addr:substreet for the 
following reasons:


1. The majority of OSM data users and tools/services using OSM data 
don't know that either addr:substreet or addr:parentstreet exist. They 
will recognise addr:housenumber and addr:street. Therefore I think the 
most important part of the address should use these tags, which is 
usually the dependent street and number. If someone is searching for an 
address, I think this is usually the part they will enter.


2. When mapping addresses I consider the addr:housenumber and 
addr:street to go together. Otherwise it is ambiguous, because there is 
no way of knowing whether the number relates to the dependent or parent 
street. This can get very confusing because the same numbers will often 
be used for addresses along the main part of the street and again on any 
subsidiary parts. If we wanted to use addr:substreet without any 
ambiguity, we would need something like addr:substreetnumber as well.


3. Using addr:substreet is just more confusing. New mappers aren't going 
to understand it. If a street has its own name and is separately 
numbered, it's intuitive to put this into the widely recognised 
addr:housenumber and addr:street tags. I know from surveying a lot of 
addresses that is difficult to guess whether Royal Mail considers a 
street to be dependent or not: such streets often don't look any 
different from other nearby streets that aren't. It's not something 
mappers should have to worry about in the majority of cases.



Just to add, I don't think addr:parentstreet it always the best 
approach. Where a 'dependent street' is say a block of flats without a 
physically separate street, using addr:housename and addr:flats is often 
simpler.


Regards,
Will

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Lester Caine]

On 31/01/18 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 27/01/2018 20:09, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:


Secondly, some addresses contain two street names, a main
street and a so-called "dependent street". Apart from the historic
anomalies, a single postcode should only cover one main street, but
can include more than one dependent street.


These are actually quite common, and having had a look at the error list 
for my local area nearly all of them are due to this - the address is on 
  secondary street accessed from the main street with which it shares a 
postcode. Here's one, for example:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304095650


(The tool will not see the
dependent streets as different if both streets are tagged, either as
addr:substreet and addr:street or as addr:street and
addr:parentstreet.) 


Which is the more correct usage here? Do we

a) tag the dependent street as the addr:street, and the main street as 
addr:parentstreet, or should we


b) (following Royal Mail practice as found in the PAF), tag the 
dependent street as a addr:substreet and the main street as addr:street?


My personal preference would be the latter, it's not only consistent 
with official addressing practice but it's also how most people perceive 
these kind of addresses as well. But, on the other hand, most map 
editors are likely to use addr:street for the dependent street, simply 
because the editor UI doesn't make it obvious that addr:substreet is a 
possibility. So it might be simpler to fix these by adding 
addr:parentstreet as necessary rather than trying to get everything 
pedantically correct.


I've the same problem on a number of cases and certainly 
addr:parentstreet is just wrong ... the sub street is actually part of 
the house detail rather than the street, so similar to 'Flat 1 Block of 
Flats' ' Street' but this still leaves the 'addr:street' or 
'postal_code' question for the tag on the primary street. Having SOME of 
these tagged 'addr:parentstreet' is simply wrong ...


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Mark Goodge]

On 27/01/2018 20:09, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:


Secondly, some addresses contain two street names, a main
street and a so-called "dependent street". Apart from the historic
anomalies, a single postcode should only cover one main street, but
can include more than one dependent street.


These are actually quite common, and having had a look at the error list 
for my local area nearly all of them are due to this - the address is on 
 secondary street accessed from the main street with which it shares a 
postcode. Here's one, for example:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304095650


(The tool will not see the
dependent streets as different if both streets are tagged, either as
addr:substreet and addr:street or as addr:street and
addr:parentstreet.) 


Which is the more correct usage here? Do we

a) tag the dependent street as the addr:street, and the main street as 
addr:parentstreet, or should we


b) (following Royal Mail practice as found in the PAF), tag the 
dependent street as a addr:substreet and the main street as addr:street?


My personal preference would be the latter, it's not only consistent 
with official addressing practice but it's also how most people perceive 
these kind of addresses as well. But, on the other hand, most map 
editors are likely to use addr:street for the dependent street, simply 
because the editor UI doesn't make it obvious that addr:substreet is a 
possibility. So it might be simpler to fix these by adding 
addr:parentstreet as necessary rather than trying to get everything 
pedantically correct.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Andy Mabbett]

On 27 January 2018 at 20:09, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:

> Following on from last quarter's post-code and addresses project, I've
> been doing a bit more playing around with UK address data from OSM.
> I've put together a new report at
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/street-warnings/

Some errors, like double spaces (e.g. "Chester␣␣Road") have no
plausible use-case, and should  - unless someone contradicts that
assertion - be corrected en mass.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Paul Berry]

Hi again Rob,

If you want some more work to do... given there will always be false
positives, per Point 3 of your original email, would you be able to add a
facility so we could mark these as such inline, eg as
https://www.keepright.at does?

S36 7GG, for example, correctly spans three addressable roads.

Regards,
*Paul*


On 30 January 2018 at 15:04, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30 January 2018 at 11:40, Lester Caine  wrote:
> > On 30/01/18 10:14, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> >>
> >> (There weren't nearly as many objects in case 2 as I thought there
> >> would be here based on people's comments, so it's possible I've messed
> >> up the programming logic somewhere. If there are still any objects
> >> with a highway=* tag listed in other sections, then please let me
> >> know, and I'll see if I can fix the bug.)
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4298681 is now listed in 'highways with
> > postcodes' for WR12 7EP, but my next road which is tagged the same way
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4299405 is under 'Street Name
> Mismatches
> > in Postcode Unit' but has the same name in both columns, so I don't see
> what
> > the problem is ...
>
> Sorry about that -- it was a bug in my code -- which I think I've
> fixed now. Have another look at
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/street-warnings/WR.html --
> there's a lot more moved to the highways section now.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> 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] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Lester Caine]

On 30/01/18 15:04, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

Sorry about that -- it was a bug in my code -- which I think I've
fixed now. Have another look at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/street-warnings/WR.html  --
there's a lot more moved to the highways section now.


That is looking a lot more sensible. On my todo list, only the entries 
on the highways section with different names need work. I am going to 
leave postcode on addr:postcode and I'll start working through the WR 
stuff with missing street names, but the other 'errors' look a lot 
easier to handle as they are just spelling and secondary street names. 
We just need to agree how to tag all the highway stuff to wipe them from 
the list?


I do appreciate the work you are doing ... I've been wasting more and 
more time on simply keeping machines working, with all the crap on 
windows machines being chased hard on the tail by similar ones on my 
main Linux machines. Having rolled back to SUSE LEAP42.3 on the main 
machine I've got a browser that works again with potlatch2 and a JOSM 
setup that is working, along with the main development platforms for the 
day job. PERHAPS now I can actually get some new work done in several 
areas ... I've even got all 4 screens running cleanly for the first time 
in years so I can keep multiple views open while cross checking things.


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 30 January 2018 at 11:40, Lester Caine  wrote:
> On 30/01/18 10:14, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>>
>> (There weren't nearly as many objects in case 2 as I thought there
>> would be here based on people's comments, so it's possible I've messed
>> up the programming logic somewhere. If there are still any objects
>> with a highway=* tag listed in other sections, then please let me
>> know, and I'll see if I can fix the bug.)
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4298681 is now listed in 'highways with
> postcodes' for WR12 7EP, but my next road which is tagged the same way
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4299405 is under 'Street Name Mismatches
> in Postcode Unit' but has the same name in both columns, so I don't see what
> the problem is ...

Sorry about that -- it was a bug in my code -- which I think I've
fixed now. Have another look at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/street-warnings/WR.html --
there's a lot more moved to the highways section now.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Lester Caine]

On 30/01/18 10:14, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

(There weren't nearly as many objects in case 2 as I thought there
would be here based on people's comments, so it's possible I've messed
up the programming logic somewhere. If there are still any objects
with a highway=* tag listed in other sections, then please let me
know, and I'll see if I can fix the bug.)


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4298681 is now listed in 'highways with 
postcodes' for WR12 7EP, but my next road which is tagged the same way 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4299405 is under 'Street Name 
Mismatches in Postcode Unit' but has the same name in both columns, so I 
don't see what the problem is ... A large number of WR12 7** postcodes 
are correct as far as MY checks show. WR12 7JJ, WR12 7PH, WR12 7PP ... 
WR12 7PJ has snagged a bus stop node ...


One source of questions is the addition of addr:postcode to bus stops. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/799223204 for example seems just 
wrong as it's now where near the WR12 7HP road and a quick check on 
local bus routes shows none stopping there anyway ... AH looks like the 
bus stop is now in the wrong place ... buses go down WR12 7HP now. But 
you can see the problem that adding postcodes to objects that don't have 
postal addresses seems strange except if one is tagging for routing :(


Other nodes are also throwing up questions such as 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3383359238 ...OK - WR14 3LT and WR14 
3LY are getting confused by the ' which is not on the PAF file or on the 
Worcestershire Hub listing ... but is on google maps :)


But I would repeat that while 'Code-Point Open' provides a list of valid 
postcodes, it can't be used to check the street names, so adding the 
postcode to the street seems to be the right thing to do. The only 
question is if t should be addr:postcode and combined with other addr: 
elements for 'place' or simply 'postal_code' ... I can accept the second 
if the guide is also to omit other addr: elements from the street 
tagging ... use of addr:place, addr:location and the like cries out for 
addr:postcode ... 'postal_code' pairs up with 'is_in' which is something 
else that does not work well?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 27 January 2018 at 20:09, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:
> Following on from last quarter's post-code and addresses project, I've
> been doing a bit more playing around with UK address data from OSM.
> I've put together a new report at
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/street-warnings/ which
> provides lists of potential issues in street names that appear in
> addresses on OSM objects.

Following some of the comments here and after looking at more of the
data, I've made a couple of tweaks to the tool:

1/ Relations with type=street are now supported in the same was as
type=associatedStreet was before. So a street name given in a 'street'
relation will now be picked up.

2/ addr:postcode tags on highway=* objects should now be listed in a
separate section, and the name=* tag is used to find the street name.
So if you want to ignore such objects you can.

(There weren't nearly as many objects in case 2 as I thought there
would be here based on people's comments, so it's possible I've messed
up the programming logic somewhere. If there are still any objects
with a highway=* tag listed in other sections, then please let me
know, and I'll see if I can fix the bug.)

Finally, there was a request not to treat "&" as an odd character. I
think this won't occur too often in actual names, and if it's included
in an OSM addr:street tag it's as likely as not to be an inappropriate
abbreviation. So I think on balance it's worth keeping. Remember that
the items listed in the tables are only warnings, and not necessarily
errors. There will inevitably be some false positives in the checks.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[SK53]

Not universally true. Streetname signs in the Boroughs of Gedling and
Rushcliffe actually may show the full postcode. Example here:
https://flic.kr/p/9r747b  . This is both ground
truth & authoritative for postcodes belong to (some) streets :-)

Secondly, OSM mapping is incremental. It is often possible to deduce the
postcode applying to buildings on a street (basically all shorter ones
with, say, under 60 addresses) merely from inspecting the postcode
centroid. Adding the postcode to the street seems reasonable in these
circumstances.

Jerry

On 29 January 2018 at 11:58, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 29/01/18 11:36, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that addr:postcode should be used only as part of
>> an address. So if you want to put a postcode on a street (or part of a
>>
>
> As I understand it, postal_code, in a UK context is for the outbound code,
> only, and is most useful in certain cities, where street name have the
> outbound code appended, on the name sign.
>
> On the other hand, sticking the full post code on a road is wrong, because
> it implies that everything on that road has that post code, which is not
> necessarily true, even for short roads, if there is a big user.
>
> For bigger roads, odd and even numbers may have different codes, and you
> cannot normally split the road at the right place without doing a house to
> house survey of the codes.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Lester Caine]

On 29/01/18 13:27, Ed Loach wrote:

All that is left to be sorted out is should all the current
addr:postcode entries logged against the street ways be replaced
with
postal_code



My suggestion is don't worry about it. Data consumers can easily check for 
both, and as soon as the actual addresses be mapped the tag (whichever) should 
be removed from the road anyway. In fact most data consumers are more likely to 
use CodePoint Open as a more complete dataset anyway.


Certainly most of the 'mistakes' I've looked at to reduce the totals on 
'WR' have not thrown up things that actually want changing! Personally 
however my own list of UK postcodes is based on the street elements of 
OSM so as NOT to be reliant on codepoint which does not supply freely 
usable street names? So being able to simply list 'highway' with 
'addr:postcode' is an unrestricted data source. If that now has to be 
changed to or mixed with 'postal_code' then so be it, but 'don't worry' 
is not the right answer when one IS trying to tidy well defined data sets.


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Steve Doerr]

On 29/01/2018 11:36, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:


Ah, I see that tagging would create a lot of false positives in my
tool and make it much less useful!

My understanding is that addr:postcode should be used only as part of
an address. So if you want to put a postcode on a street (or part of a
street) then addr:postcode isn't the best tag to use. Instead, there's
a postal_code=* tag defined in the wiki at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:postal_code which would seem
to be more appropriate for this use case.




Maybe. But rather than open up a whole tagging debate and then 
potentially start a retagging exercise, would it make sense as an 
immediate fix for the tool to ignore objects with a highway tag?


--
Steve

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Ed Loach]

> All that is left to be sorted out is should all the current
> addr:postcode entries logged against the street ways be replaced
> with
> postal_code 

My suggestion is don't worry about it. Data consumers can easily check for 
both, and as soon as the actual addresses be mapped the tag (whichever) should 
be removed from the road anyway. In fact most data consumers are more likely to 
use CodePoint Open as a more complete dataset anyway.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Mark Goodge]

On 29/01/2018 12:38, Lester Caine wrote:


UK post codes are based on the postmans walk, so follow the footpaths 
that a postman can follow to deliver mail. Yes a street may have a 
different postcode on each side, and long roads are broken down into 
smaller blocks each with it's own postcode. One rule for postcodes is 
that each will only cover one primary street name and so ignoring the 
'postal address file', postcodes ARE essentially a list of streets.


For residential streets, that's generally true (although there are 
exceptions). It's not at all a reliable guide in commercial areas, 
though, where a significant number of properties will have large user 
postcodes of their own.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Lester Caine]

(Send to pigging list ...)

On 29/01/18 11:58, David Woolley wrote:

On 29/01/18 11:36, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

My understanding is that addr:postcode should be used only as part of
an address. So if you want to put a postcode on a street (or part of a


As I understand it, postal_code, in a UK context is for the outbound 
code, only, and is most useful in certain cities, where street name have 
the outbound code appended, on the name sign.


On the other hand, sticking the full post code on a road is wrong, 
because it implies that everything on that road has that post code, 
which is not necessarily true, even for short roads, if there is a big 
user.


For bigger roads, odd and even numbers may have different codes, and you 
cannot normally split the road at the right place without doing a house 
to house survey of the codes.


UK post codes are based on the postmans walk, so follow the footpaths 
that a postman can follow to deliver mail. Yes a street may have a 
different postcode on each side, and long roads are broken down into 
smaller blocks each with it's own postcode. One rule for postcodes is 
that each will only cover one primary street name and so ignoring the 
'postal address file', postcodes ARE essentially a list of streets.


Two new estates are going up either side of here and both currently have 
plot numbers for selling the houses, but they will be replaced with new 
road names and house numbers which the council will allocate, and then 
the post office will add new postcodes to those new road names.


All that is left to be sorted out is should all the current 
addr:postcode entries logged against the street ways be replaced with 
postal_code ... that should probably have been used originally, bu this 
material is ONLY relevant to the addr: group of tags ... except most sat 
nav's these days understand a postcode better than a street name.


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Paul Berry]

>  On the other hand, sticking the full post code on a road is wrong,
because it implies that everything on that road has that post code, which
is not necessarily true, even for short roads, if there is a big user.

But on roads where that *is* true, which granted might not be many, I have
done so (and I suspect others have).

Also, in terms of address density a short urban road is equivalent to a
long rural one. My postcode maps to a road 1.5 miles long, allocated to
properties on both sides :) For every rule...

Regards,
*Paul*

On 29 January 2018 at 11:58, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 29/01/18 11:36, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that addr:postcode should be used only as part of
>> an address. So if you want to put a postcode on a street (or part of a
>>
>
> As I understand it, postal_code, in a UK context is for the outbound code,
> only, and is most useful in certain cities, where street name have the
> outbound code appended, on the name sign.
>
> On the other hand, sticking the full post code on a road is wrong, because
> it implies that everything on that road has that post code, which is not
> necessarily true, even for short roads, if there is a big user.
>
> For bigger roads, odd and even numbers may have different codes, and you
> cannot normally split the road at the right place without doing a house to
> house survey of the codes.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Lester Caine]

On 29/01/18 09:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

So it ignores a simple 'name' ? which is why a lot of my streets are getting
tagged as wrong? I don't see any reason to have to add addr:street= when the
road already has name= ... The adjacent building use addr:street= ...

You're right that it doesn't look at the name=* key (except on
associatedStreet relations). But that shouldn't be a problem, as the
tool is only checking objects with an addr:postcode=* tag -- which
should be houses and other addressable premises, not the roads/streets
themselves. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my original post. (There's
currently no check that the values in addr:street=* on premises match
the name=* any mapped highway=* nearby.)

If you're not sure what's causing anything that's flagged by the tool,
let me know know the postcode(s) and I'll take a look.


So you are saying that the postcode should be removed from the street to 
fix your listings? I would prefer things the other way around and always 
have. The street and associated data does not need duplicating on every 
house if there is a matching street with the same addr:postcode ... but 
I think that boat has sailed ... However I see no reason to remove the 
addr:postcode from the street especially where routing to the property 
can take you to the wrong street where the building is closer to another 
road but has no access from it. So I'm not going to remove valid tagging ...


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Paul Berry]

Hi Rob,

This is a really useful tool and I've already started making tweaks to
address data based on it.

Could I make a suggestion? I think an ampersand is a legitimate character
to see in an address or street name:
Other Odd Characters

Street names containing anything other than letters, punctuation, spaces
and numbers.
Regular expression: /[^A-Za-z0-9 '\.,:;()/\\-]/.
SectorPostcodeMappedDominant Street Name
WF1 1  WF1 1UQ 2

George␣&␣Crown␣Yard

In this example, the street they're on is given by
https://osm.org/way/252054368

Thanks again.

Regards,
*Paul*


On 29 January 2018 at 09:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29 January 2018 at 09:18, Lester Caine  wrote:
> > So it ignores a simple 'name' ? which is why a lot of my streets are
> getting
> > tagged as wrong? I don't see any reason to have to add addr:street= when
> the
> > road already has name= ... The adjacent building use addr:street= ...
>
> You're right that it doesn't look at the name=* key (except on
> associatedStreet relations). But that shouldn't be a problem, as the
> tool is only checking objects with an addr:postcode=* tag -- which
> should be houses and other addressable premises, not the roads/streets
> themselves. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my original post. (There's
> currently no check that the values in addr:street=* on premises match
> the name=* any mapped highway=* nearby.)
>
> If you're not sure what's causing anything that's flagged by the tool,
> let me know know the postcode(s) and I'll take a look.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> 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] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 29 January 2018 at 09:18, Lester Caine  wrote:
> So it ignores a simple 'name' ? which is why a lot of my streets are getting
> tagged as wrong? I don't see any reason to have to add addr:street= when the
> road already has name= ... The adjacent building use addr:street= ...

You're right that it doesn't look at the name=* key (except on
associatedStreet relations). But that shouldn't be a problem, as the
tool is only checking objects with an addr:postcode=* tag -- which
should be houses and other addressable premises, not the roads/streets
themselves. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my original post. (There's
currently no check that the values in addr:street=* on premises match
the name=* any mapped highway=* nearby.)

If you're not sure what's causing anything that's flagged by the tool,
let me know know the postcode(s) and I'll take a look.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Lester Caine]

On 27/01/18 20:09, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

[1] Due to the way addresses are recorded in OSM, and the formatting
of UK addresses by Royal Mail (see also [3] below), the "Street Name"
for an object is picked up by the tool from a variety of tags.
Currently it uses the following, in order of precedence: the
addr:place tag, the addr:parentstreet tag, the addr:street tag, the
name tag on associatedStreet relation if present, and the
addr:locality tag


So it ignores a simple 'name' ? which is why a lot of my streets are 
getting tagged as wrong? I don't see any reason to have to add 
addr:street= when the road already has name= ... The adjacent building 
use addr:street= ...


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Rob Nickerson]

As with Paul many errors are mine too. In particular anything with a
"Tagged Street" set to Styvechale in the CV postcode area. Maybe I should
be sing suburb, district or subdistrict but I have no idea which - maybe
suburb??

Suggestions welcome :-)

But good tool to highlight this inconsistency. Thanks!

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Paul]

You'll find quite a lot of mine bacuase the wiki recommendations don't fit 
at all any sort of sense.


As we don't have a sensible set of descriptions between addr:city and 
addr:hamlet, I'll use addr:place unless somewhere is very suburban (and 
council estates don't fit my vision of suburban - not really Betjeman 
country).


So will be many instances of addr:street combined with addr:place. 

Usual usage (which I haven't changed where people have done that) is to 
class small villages as addr:city when they aren't even a post town. 
Without getting into the usual debate on defining Cities (the Centre for 
Cities has one, the Centre for Towns has an overlapping one for towns, and 
I'm reasonably sure that the Council for the Protection of Rural England 
overlaps with both, as well as the legal Wells and St Davids)...


Paul

On Saturday, 27 January 2018 20:09:25 GMT, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
wrote:

Following on from last quarter's post-code and addresses project, I've
been doing a bit more playing around with UK address data from OSM.
I've put together a new report at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/street-warnings/ which
provides lists of potential issues in street names (e.g. addr:street=*
values [1]) that appear in addresses on OSM objects [2].

In general, all the premises with the same postcode should have the
same street name in their address [3]. The report flags cases where
this isn't true, as well as potential anomalies in the street names
(e.g. odd punctuation, abbreviations), and also cases where there is
no street given. Key things it will help mappers detect are
typos/inconsistencies in street names within addresses and
typos/errors in addr:postcode values that put the wrong postcode on an
object a few streets away from where it should be. The data should be
updated roughly once a week.

Please have a look if you're interested, and see if you find it useful
in picking up mistakes. Also let me know if you've got any
ideas/suggestions for improvements.

Some technical notes:

[1] Due to the way addresses are recorded in OSM, and the formatting
of UK addresses by Royal Mail (see also [3] below), the "Street Name"
for an object is picked up by the tool from a variety of tags.
Currently it uses the following, in order of precedence: the
addr:place tag, the addr:parentstreet tag, the addr:street tag, the
name tag on associatedStreet relation if present, and the
addr:locality tag

[2] Since the tool uses data collected for analysing postcodes, it
only considers objects with valid  addr:postcode tags.

[3] It's not quite true to say that a single postcode unit can only
have addresses on a single street. First, there are a small number of
historic anomalies where a single postcode unit does cover more than
one street. Secondly, some addresses contain two street names, a main
street and a so-called "dependent street". Apart from the historic
anomalies, a single postcode should only cover one main street, but
can include more than one dependent street. (The tool will not see the
dependent streets as different if both streets are tagged, either as
addr:substreet and addr:street or as addr:street and
addr:parentstreet.) Finally, some addresses (e.g. in small hamlets) do
not officially contain a street name and just have a house name and
locality. So if the streets have names and these have been added to an
OSM object, it may appear that a single postcode covers more than one
street. (The tool will ignore different streets if addr:place is used
for the common place/hamlet name.)

Robert.




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

[Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

Following on from last quarter's post-code and addresses project, I've
been doing a bit more playing around with UK address data from OSM.
I've put together a new report at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/street-warnings/ which
provides lists of potential issues in street names (e.g. addr:street=*
values [1]) that appear in addresses on OSM objects [2].

In general, all the premises with the same postcode should have the
same street name in their address [3]. The report flags cases where
this isn't true, as well as potential anomalies in the street names
(e.g. odd punctuation, abbreviations), and also cases where there is
no street given. Key things it will help mappers detect are
typos/inconsistencies in street names within addresses and
typos/errors in addr:postcode values that put the wrong postcode on an
object a few streets away from where it should be. The data should be
updated roughly once a week.

Please have a look if you're interested, and see if you find it useful
in picking up mistakes. Also let me know if you've got any
ideas/suggestions for improvements.

Some technical notes:

[1] Due to the way addresses are recorded in OSM, and the formatting
of UK addresses by Royal Mail (see also [3] below), the "Street Name"
for an object is picked up by the tool from a variety of tags.
Currently it uses the following, in order of precedence: the
addr:place tag, the addr:parentstreet tag, the addr:street tag, the
name tag on associatedStreet relation if present, and the
addr:locality tag

[2] Since the tool uses data collected for analysing postcodes, it
only considers objects with valid  addr:postcode tags.

[3] It's not quite true to say that a single postcode unit can only
have addresses on a single street. First, there are a small number of
historic anomalies where a single postcode unit does cover more than
one street. Secondly, some addresses contain two street names, a main
street and a so-called "dependent street". Apart from the historic
anomalies, a single postcode should only cover one main street, but
can include more than one dependent street. (The tool will not see the
dependent streets as different if both streets are tagged, either as
addr:substreet and addr:street or as addr:street and
addr:parentstreet.) Finally, some addresses (e.g. in small hamlets) do
not officially contain a street name and just have a house name and
locality. So if the streets have names and these have been added to an
OSM object, it may appear that a single postcode covers more than one
street. (The tool will ignore different streets if addr:place is used
for the common place/hamlet name.)

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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