2015-02-25 20:31 GMT+01:00 Swen Wacker swen.wac...@gmail.com:
2015-02-25 15:57 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
thank you for these references. I have noticed that all of them reference
the BauGB §126, which seems to confirm that this is the legal basis for the
2015-01-23 8:55 GMT+01:00 Swen Wacker swen.wac...@gmail.com:
2015-01-22 19:44 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:
In Germany the address always belongs to the plot and not to the
building and they are assigned in advance.
This is not correct. The decision is up to the local
2015-02-25 15:09 GMT+01:00 Swen Wacker swen.wac...@gmail.com:
I have not yet found any text that doesn't state that the plot is the main
unit for numbering
http://www.rosenheim.de/uploads/media/631f.pdf
http://www.bad-doberan.de/uploads/media/Hausnummernsatzung.pdf
2015-02-25 15:57 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
thank you for these references. I have noticed that all of them reference
the BauGB §126, which seems to confirm that this is the legal basis for the
numbering
Are you kidding me? :-)
1. Neither
On 21.01.2015 08:28, Markus Lindholm wrote:
Before we get carried away by a zillion relations I think we have to
answer the questions as to what purpose do we want to explicitly
associate an address with a POI or a building.
Is it so that the data consumer can find her way to a POI? That's
Hi Friedrich.
I can't say for whole World,
as for Russia we have plots of lands having addresses without buildings.
They are not always dedicated to be build up with something.
There is three ways, (maybe more, but i don't know for sure):
1. Large landuses as landuse=industrial may have their
On 22.01.2015 04:02, John F. Eldredge wrote:
If you have a strictly delimited plot of land, with no house currently
built upon it, but which is intended for later construction, does it have a
house number? Or is the address only assigned once a building is built?
When it is already intended
Am 22.01.2015 um 04:02 schrieb John F. Eldredge:
If you have a strictly delimited plot of land, with no house currently
built upon it, but which is intended for later construction, does it
have a house number? Or is the address only assigned once a building is
built?
In Germany the address
On 19.01.2015 12:37, Markus Lindholm wrote:
Treating addresses as attributes might be fast and convenient but that
kind of scheme
becomes incoherent as there is no one-to-one relationship between
addresses and other features.
E.g.
- There are MULTIPLE POIs that all relate to ONE address
-
On 19.01.2015 12:47, Andrew Shadura wrote:
It doesn't actually matter if you agree or not, because it doesn't change
the fact that buildings in CZ and SK don't have multiple addresses.
I cannot judge this. If this is a fact, addr2 is not needed or even plain
wrong for conscription numbers in CZ
On 19 January 2015 at 11:08, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
That's wrong, as I've already explained in another message. When you write a
letter to an address in Austria using a conscription number, you MUST omit
the street name. Otherwise the letter will be returned as undeliverable.
Andrew, anyway they are mapped in osm as addresses
(ok special kind of addresses), and used in the way addresses usually used.
Addresses are still distinct as they was
There is only one building for Praha, 606
and only one building for Praha, Staroměstské náměstí, 11
Same story for Tallin:
On 19.01.2015 10:41, Andrew Shadura wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 11:08, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
That's wrong, as I've already explained in another message. When you write a
letter to an address in Austria using a conscription number, you MUST omit
the street name. Otherwise the
In my country, both numbers are used concurrently
and together with street name
Such thing, that you use conscription numbers
and street numbers all together in a same time
doesn't make conscription numbers not an address
You've said:
Praha, 606 might be not unique inside whole Praha
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:56:01AM +0300, Dmitry Kiselev wrote:
addr:city=ukrainian city name
addr:street=ukrainian street name
addr:housenumber=123
Is enough, all kind of translations might be taken from matched street/city
as good as any kind of old_names or alt_names
Good point.
No, it's not two addresses, it's just a single one. It's just a
particular feature of it that you can omit a part of it (either of the
building numbers or sometimes the street name if you have the
conscription number).
I've got your point, but I cant agree with you that it's not a multiple
On 19 January 2015 at 11:33, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
I have been living in this country for all my life, and I worked at a post
office for some months. So you can safely believe my statements. But all you
mind to say it that it's all untrue. Well, maybe you also say that the
If you mean osm relation between POI and every address node,
such schema will not ever be widely in use.
As for relational databases, yep one more SQL relation is an option.
And for noSQL data storages there are hundred ways to store such relationships.
Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:37:32 +0100 от
On 19.01.2015 09:57, Andrew Shadura wrote:
Dmitry, this isn't true. Conscription number/street number is just a
special sort of an address, it's not like two totally separate
addresses. Yes, you can use a part of it to address a building
(conscription number + optional street + optional
On 19.01.2015 11:10, Andrew Shadura wrote:
If your country has effectively abolished conscription numbers, this
is one thing. Another this is how they work in countries where they're
used all the time. In my country, both numbers are used concurrently
and together with street name, and this
On 18.01.2015 22:23, Markus Lindholm wrote:
I think that comes down to how addresses are viewed, either as a
proper feature in their one right or as an attribute to some other
feature.
Yes, that's the crux.
I think addresses are proper features, so a distinct address
should be found only
No, it's not two addresses, it's just a single one. It's just a
particular feature of it that you can omit a part of it (either of the
building numbers or sometimes the street name if you have the
conscription number).
I've got your point, but I cant agree with you that it's not a
So we have 2 millions things in OSM going against OSM modeling tradition:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr%3Aconscriptionnumber
It's same story, two addresses for one object.
First: hn-street-city
Second: hn-city
Scheme is different, but principle is the same, two addresses for one
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:11:23PM +0100, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
On 16.01.2015 05:48, Ineiev wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:53:13PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
you could use polygons (e.g. 2 distinct multipolygons, one for each
address), and add a note to inform your fellow
Markus, there is no problems with distinct addresses at all
if you treat them as first class citizen in your database.
Table address
id, scheme, hn, street, quarter, neighbourhood, city, e.t.c
Table POI
id, name, brand, operator, something, else
Table POI_Addr
POI (POI.id), addr (address.id)
Am 17.01.2015 um 23:11 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
On 16.01.2015 05:48, Ineiev wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:53:13PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
you could use polygons (e.g. 2 distinct multipolygons, one for each
address), and add a note to inform your fellow mapping colleagues that
Addresses are funny beasts. They may mean something different for the
delivery guy, the mailman, the administration, the owner of the building,
the cab driver who needs to let out a passenger.
Maybe we should also indicate whether we mapped the ground parcel, the
building, the doorbell, the
On 18 January 2015 at 22:11, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-01-18 20:52 GMT+00:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
On 17 January 2015 at 22:16, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
With the addrN schema, we need one object (a node tagged shop=* and
addrN:*=*) for a
On 16.01.2015 11:40, Markus Lindholm wrote:
What we don't need is yet another special case mapping scheme like addrN
Have you had the time to look at the existing relation of
type=provides_feature
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature
and how you can use it to
On 16.01.2015 05:48, Ineiev wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:53:13PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
you could use polygons (e.g. 2 distinct multipolygons, one for each
address), and add a note to inform your fellow mapping colleagues that the
overlap is intended (note is not needed but
On 16.01.2015 17:04, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
There is an addr:city=* key for the city,
Is there a building in your dataset that lives in two cities?
No. I used a bogus example just to demonstrate the syntax.
And here's where we simply say:
addr=val1;val2;val3
If you're in North
On 16 January 2015 at 01:04, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
We can discuss its pros and cons, but I
think the main message is that multiple addresses are mapped differently all
over the world. Every country has its local OSM community which concoct
their own tagging rules. The result
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
In that scenario, I'd much prefer to see two nodes, each with their
address, and each tagged as an entrance.
What you prefer certainly depends on your needs. Adresses on entrances are
fine for routing, maybe for visual
I support using the addrN:* tagging proposed here in the specific
situation where a single residence or business has multiple addresses.
Note I am not referring to a building with multiple occupiers, but a
single addressee with more than one address. In England I have never
encountered this
The idea, if I understand it, is to allow for some arbitrary number of
values for an address.
That's an important goal as we increase the number of addresses in OSM.
I do have some questions/concerns about this specific proposal.
As I examine it, it serves one very specific purpose, which is a
Hello Friedrich,
in Czech Republic they have a similar problem: They have so called
conscription numbers, which are unique in the whole city and
additionally the normal housenumbers.
They use the key addr:streetnumber (675,742× used) for the number unique
within the street, addr:conscriptionnumber
On 15 January 2015 at 17:08, Florian Schäfer flor...@schaeferban.de wrote:
Hello Friedrich,
in Czech Republic they have a similar problem: They have so called
conscription numbers, which are unique in the whole city and
additionally the normal housenumbers.
They use the key addr:streetnumber
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking about this solution too. The addrN scheme is really
quite awkward so it'd be nice to recommend something like simply
having two nodes/multipolygons with exactly the same overlapping
geometry. However, this
On 15.01.2015 17:08, Florian Schäfer wrote:
in Czech Republic they have a similar problem: They have so called
conscription numbers, which are unique in the whole city and
additionally the normal housenumbers.
They use the key addr:streetnumber (675,742× used) for the number unique
within the
On 15.01.2015 12:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
you could use polygons (e.g. 2 distinct multipolygons, one for each
address), and add a note to inform your fellow mapping colleagues that the
overlap is intended (note is not needed but nice).
That still separates the feature from its address,
On 15.01.2015 13:10, Dan S wrote:
The addrN scheme is really quite awkward
Can you explain why you find it awkward?
It seems to me that the displeasure felt with the addrN scheme is caused by
a phenomenon called transference. Multiple addresses in the real world are
awkward, but they do exist
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
This exact approach is new to me. We can discuss its pros and cons, but I
think the main message is that multiple addresses are mapped differently
all
over the world. Every country has its local OSM community which
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:53:13PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
you could use polygons (e.g. 2 distinct multipolygons, one for each
address), and add a note to inform your fellow mapping colleagues that the
overlap is intended (note is not needed but nice).
I think this solution has an
I never heard of alt_addr:*. Where is it documented?
I could not find any documentation either. I only found it on taginfo by
analogy to alt_name.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 15 January 2015 at 03:02, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
The proposal seems to be a good solution to this problem.
This particular proposal seems to be a terrible solution to this
problem. It requires changes to the software, and the tagging scheme
is ugly as hell. At the same time, there's much
On 15.01.15 12:23, Andrew Shadura wrote:
This particular proposal seems to be a terrible solution to this problem. It
requires changes to the software, and the tagging scheme is ugly as hell. At
the same time, there's much simpler and better solution: placing address nodes
inside the building
2015-01-15 12:23 GMT+01:00 Andrew Shadura and...@shadura.me:
On 15 January 2015 at 03:02, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
The proposal seems to be a good solution to this problem.
This particular proposal seems to be a terrible solution to this
problem. It requires changes to the software, and
On 15.01.2015 08:41, Volker Schmidt wrote:
What's the difference to alt_addr:xxx
(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=alt_addr#keys), apart from the
fact that addrN is used more frequently?
I never heard of alt_addr:*. Where is it documented?
It seems that alt_addr:* allows only one
2015-01-15 12:43 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
With addrN:*=* it's clear that the same place has two addresses. If there
are two nodes, it seems like there are two places (Two entrances, two
apartments, two rooms), each with it's own address. AddrN* is clearly
superior in this
2015-01-15 11:53 GMT+00:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2015-01-15 12:43 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
With addrN:*=* it's clear that the same place has two addresses. If there
are two nodes, it seems like there are two places (Two entrances, two
apartments, two
On 15 January 2015 at 12:43, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-01-15 12:23 GMT+01:00 Andrew Shadura and...@shadura.me:
On 15 January 2015 at 03:02, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
The proposal seems to be a good solution to this problem.
This particular proposal seems to be a terrible
On 15.01.2015 17:29, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
As I examine it, it serves one very specific purpose, which is a
building with two addresses.
It can also be applied to other areas (e.g. parcels) or nodes (e.g. shop
nodes). Of course, the common crux is the existence of two or more
equivalent
On Jan 15, 2015, at 8:43 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-01-15 12:23 GMT+01:00 Andrew Shadura and...@shadura.me
mailto:and...@shadura.me:
On 15 January 2015 at 03:02, johnw jo...@mac.com mailto:jo...@mac.com
wrote:
The proposal seems to be a good solution to this
That’s really interesting. I had no idea there were locations with more than 1
commonly used address.
The proposal seems to be a good solution to this problem.
Javbw
On Jan 15, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
What's the difference to alt_addr:xxx (
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=alt_addr#keys), apart from the
fact that addrN is used more frequently?
Other point: I know that in the UK addresses may have two alternative
forms: house name or number. This would also fall in this category and
55 matches
Mail list logo
