Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Johan C]

2015-01-24 1:07 GMT+01:00 Christian Quest :

>
> Le 22/01/2015 22:49, Johan C a écrit :
> > Good to have this discussion. From a computer expert point-of-view
> > relations are fantastic for data integrity and to keep database size
> > low. From an OSM point-of-view, which includes being friendly towards
> > novice users, relations should be avoided whenever possible. And
> > associatedStreet relations are avoidable.
>
> A novice user will hardly break an associatedStreet relation, but will
> more often break addr:* when updating a streetname without updating
> related addresses.
>

In my experience it's quite rare that streetnames change. But indeed, some
programs like mkgmap rely on matching addresses to streets based on names,
so these (rare) changes will create errors for renderers using the same
technique mkgmap does.

It is much harder to detect the second at the QA level.
>
>
It's not. Geofabrik Inspector is very precise, even with upper and lower
capitals:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&lon=2.27745&lat=48.83361&zoom=12&overlays=street_not_found


> If simplicity is our new mantra, who will be the first propose to
> deprecate the public_transport relation based tagging scheme ?
>
>
I didn't use the word simplicity in my previous posting. Though the KISS
principle could be applied on relations. When I started mapping it took me
about 6 months to understand the idear of relations and when they had to be
applied in OSM. In these six months I had already mapped dozens of POI's
including full address info. Which, from an associatedStreet point-of-view,
is wrong mapping.

The thing with relations is that logically everything relates to other
things. A POI inside a building relates to that building, the lantern and
the tree in front of that building relate to a street, the building itself
relates to a street, a street relates to a neighbourhood, a neighborhood
relates to a city, a city relates to a country and a country relates to a
continent. Logically all these relations should be built manually into OSM,
that is if one loves relations. Out of that logical string one (why one?)
is chosen to be good for mapping addresses: associatedStreet.

The situation is black and white: for addresses it's not necessary to use
relations, so associatedStreet can be deprecated. In cases like a bus route
and a turn restrictions it's impossible not to use a relation to achieve a
certain goal (like good routing), so these are examples where relations
need to be kept. I don't have any problem keeping OSM simple when it can be
kept simple. Not for me as an experienced mapper, but for the mappers OSM
will attract in the coming years.

Cheers, Johan

--
> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 25/01/2015 13:00, Andreas Goss a écrit :


Fully borken or not. In my opinion a assiciatedstreet relation that 
does not include every element is broken. At that point all the 
advantages are gone.

associatedStreet is not multypolygon !

A lack in the outer of a multipolygon is a gap and brakes it. Yes !

But a lack of a house in a addressStreet is only a lack as in the 
addr:street Schema. Nothing is broken!


Maybe it could be a miscomprehension of this kind of relation.
--
FrViPofm

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 25/01/2015, Andreas Goss  wrote:
> Fully borken or not. In my opinion a assiciatedstreet relation that does
> not include every element is broken. At that point all the advantages
> are gone.

To me "breaking the relation" would mean that all the addresses it
contains are now unusable. In your example you've only broken one
address.

To break all addresses at once, you either have to remove the street
member from the relation, or (in the case of addr:street) rename the
street.

>> * Add a new addr:housenumber but forget/ignore to add addr:street
>> (would be no different with associatedStreet, except the local
>> newbie's work will have been prepared by the armchair veteran)
>
> Why would it have been prepared?

I often do that when I Bing-trace buildings. I consider adding the AS
relation part of my armchair-mapping workflow, unless I know I'll
never survey that particular area and there already are addresses
tagged using addr:street (meaning there's a local mapper there who
prefers addr:street).

> And why with AS but not with addr:street?

It's impossible to add an addr:street tag before you know the name of
the street.

> Most associatedStreet-relations I found in Germany did only
> include houses where someone actually mapped the housenumber. I did not
> find a single one where all houses in a street were included, but lacked
> other addr: tags.

Again, I create such relations and it seems I am not the only one. No
idea of frequent this is, anyone has a good overpass query to measure
this ?

Note that "this house corresponds to this street" is valuable
information even if the house has neither a number nor a name. Also,
in my region (Ireland) it's not rare for housenumbers to be so messy
that I have no idea what number a particular house has, even after a
survey. But I *do* know which street it corresponds to.

>> * Change the name of a street (btw, newbies often use iD and dont know
>> how to search objects by tag). Much more common than you think if you
>> consider street that have not been named yet or that have been split
>> at the wrong spot.
>
> If a street is split several times and a user knows he can find all
> parts in a relation I would no longer consider that user a newbie.

Not sure what you mean here. I was describing an addr:street usecase,
not a relation usecase. And updating all the addr:street after
renaming a street is so easy to get wrong that even veterans can let
an error slip in.

>> The point is not that associatedStreet relations are unbreakable, but
>> that there are less opportunities for breakage than there is with
>> addr:street.
>
> And that's where I disagree. Removing a object for a relations is as
> likely as missing a addr:street tag.

We're all relying on feelings here to figure out what error scenario
is more common and more likely. We're biased by what editors we use,
and by the workflows we're more comfortable with. It's safe to say by
now that both schemes can break pretty easily. But until somebody can
study the actual, world-wide, cross-editor frequency of each failure
modes, I fear we're just not going to convince each other.

> In addition the consequences are
> worse for the associatedstreet relation, because you assume it's
> complete when it actuall isn't, which makes it kinda pointless.

I really don't see a difference here. An incomplete/missing address is
just as bad whatever scheme it was mapped with. Nobody assume a
relation is "complete" just like nobody assume that any data in OSM is
"complete". The QA tools can spot the incomplete address just as
easily in both cases.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 25/01/2015, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> My experience is that it is very hard to place every house in the right
> relation before you know the actual address. Especially with corner houses
> and in rural areas where the driveways to the farms do not always connect
> to the street with the address.
> Another problem is that the street endings in OSM might be wrong, so you
> have to move houses from one relation to another after your survey.
>
> At least that are cases that I have encountered during my surveys. Hope
> that you do not have to do this.

That has happened to me a couple of times (it certainly depends on the
part of the world you're mapping in), but is rare enough that this
workflow is still a big time saver. Changing the relation a house
belongs to in Vespucci is a bit annoying, but stil easy enough that it
can be done at surey time.

One type of armchair mapping error that I do much more often is wrong
splitting of joined buildings. For those, fixing in Vespucci is too
much of a pain so I add a "fixme" tag on the building instead, and do
a quick post-survey fixes changeset with JOSM.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 22/01/2015 16:14, Vincent Pottier a écrit :

UK  ~9000
PL  ~1700
CZ  ~ 100
HU  ~ 130
SE  >  900
RU  1850
FR is down
No stats for DE
FR  113 000 
: 53%


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Andreas Goss]

Hi all - does anyone know what the geographic distribution of
associatedStreet is like? taginfo doesn't render a map (it seems it
doesn't do that for relations). I hear rumours it's mainly Germany but
it'd be handy to know.


Wambacher posted some maps in the Forum:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=480354#p480354

I have added them to the Wiki page and also put a section on the Talk: 
page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet)


Looks like it is mainly used in France, Belgium, Germany and Ukraine.
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Jo]

But wat is local in the global context of OSM? It seems that, as far as
Belgium is concerned, I'm the only one with an interest to keep using them.
I do think they add some value, especially in a bilingual context like in
Brussels.

But if I'm the only one in the whole (small) country, who am I to try to
keep them?

On the one hand it would be relatively easy to keep them up to date
automatically in Brussels and semi-automatically Flanders, since we are
allowed to use official datasets for integration in these areas.

It seems like the biggest issue the proponents of abolishing aS, is that
it's hard to keep them up-to-date, and that is where the situation is
different over here and in France. Since France (and Spain and the
Netherlands too), have access to address data from cadastre.

On the one hand this means that it becomes possible in these countries to
actually add each and every address to OSM. I think that in such case it
makes sense to not store city names, postcodes and possibly street names
over and over again millions of times.

Polyglot

2015-01-25 17:46 GMT+01:00 Serge Wroclawski :

> It'll be interesting to see how the German community handles this as
> an excercise for other communities.
>
> I think that handling this in a local way is the right move.
>
> - Serge
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Jo  wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Sometimes I remove stuff by accident realize it later and instead of
> going
> >> back just replace it, because I did more stuff in that time and don't
> want
> >> to lose my work.
> >
> >
> > If you care about preserving the history of that object, you could do the
> > following in JOSM:
> >
> > Create new layer
> > Download data around what you deleted
> > Merge downloaded layer into working layer
> > You'll get a conflict and can retrieve the object by resolving the
> conflict.
> >
> > Polyglot
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Serge Wroclawski]

It'll be interesting to see how the German community handles this as
an excercise for other communities.

I think that handling this in a local way is the right move.

- Serge

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Jo  wrote:
>
>
>> Sometimes I remove stuff by accident realize it later and instead of going
>> back just replace it, because I did more stuff in that time and don't want
>> to lose my work.
>
>
> If you care about preserving the history of that object, you could do the
> following in JOSM:
>
> Create new layer
> Download data around what you deleted
> Merge downloaded layer into working layer
> You'll get a conflict and can retrieve the object by resolving the conflict.
>
> Polyglot
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Jo]

Sometimes I remove stuff by accident realize it later and instead of going
> back just replace it, because I did more stuff in that time and don't want
> to lose my work.
>

If you care about preserving the history of that object, you could do the
following in JOSM:

Create new layer
Download data around what you deleted
Merge downloaded layer into working layer
You'll get a conflict and can retrieve the object by resolving the conflict.

Polyglot
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Andreas Goss]

Your editor will probably hace displayed a warning at step 1. At the
end of the operation, you've got a house missing it street, not a
fully broken relation.


Most don't. Right now JOSM is the only one I use that does. Especially 
most mobile editors don't... some just flat out don't even show you 
relations.


Fully borken or not. In my opinion a assiciatedstreet relation that does 
not include every element is broken. At that point all the advantages 
are gone.



That's nitpicking, I know. How about "breaking" addr:street addresses
to compare ?


Obviously not much better, but I think people are less likely to just 
remove a addr:street without noticing than a relation. So I fail to see 
how is makes AS better as everyone claims.



* Same remove/replace/add steps with a typo when readding addr:street
("what ? but I picked the automcomplete suggestion !"). Actually, that
works without the remove/replace steps as well.


Often I do this to convert a node into a area.

Sometimes I remove stuff by accident realize it later and instead of 
going back just replace it, because I did more stuff in that time and 
don't want to lose my work.



* Add a new addr:housenumber but forget/ignore to add addr:street
(would be no different with associatedStreet, except the local
newbie's work will have been prepared by the armchair veteran)


Why would it have been prepared? And why with AS but not with 
addr:street? Most associatedStreet-relations I found in Germany did only 
include houses where someone actually mapped the housenumber. I did not 
find a single one where all houses in a street were included, but lacked 
other addr: tags.



* Change the name of a street (btw, newbies often use iD and dont know
how to search objects by tag). Much more common than you think if you
consider street that have not been named yet or that have been split
at the wrong spot.


If a street is split several times and a user knows he can find all 
parts in a relation I would no longer consider that user a newbie.



The point is not that associatedStreet relations are unbreakable, but
that there are less opportunities for breakage than there is with
addr:street.


And that's where I disagree. Removing a object for a relations is as 
likely as missing a addr:street tag. In addition the consequences are 
worse for the associatedstreet relation, because you assume it's 
complete when it actuall isn't, which makes it kinda pointless.

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Marc Gemis]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:17 AM, moltonel 3x Combo 
wrote:

> and more powerful (preparing a
> housenumber survey by armchair-mapping buildings and
> associatedStreet).
>

My experience is that it is very hard to place every house in the right
relation before you know the actual address. Especially with corner houses
and in rural areas where the driveways to the farms do not always connect
to the street with the address.
Another problem is that the street endings in OSM might be wrong, so you
have to move houses from one relation to another after your survey.

At least that are cases that I have encountered during my surveys. Hope
that you do not have to do this.

regards

m.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 24/01/2015, Andreas Goss  wrote:
> I really don't get this. If you are able to add house numbers, why would
> you be likely to fuck up street names? If at all seeing addr:street when
> on the ground is good, because you can be sure it's you are adding it to
> the right building and can also fix possible street errors. It's not
> like every street relation is perfect. I also don't get what's
> cumbersome of having a line for street name on your mobile device editor.

We've already detailed some breakage scenarios for both
associatedStreet and addr:street, so I'll just focus on typos and
mobile devices.

Typos are easy to make. The more times you type a particular street
name, the more likely you are to have made a typo. In that respect, he
editor's autocomplete feature is a mixed blessing, because it can pick
the wrong name without you noticing (that's actually worse than a
plain typo, because QA tools are less likely to spot it).

Typing on a mobile device is even worse : the keyboard is smaller,
there is less feedback, it reacts more slowly, the key layout varies
and probably isn't in your muscle memory, positioning the cursor can
be an exercise in frustration, the outdoor conditions may be a
hindrance, etc.

The less I type the better. As for verifying that all the correct
houses correspond to a particular street, I'll take JOSM's 2 clicks
(click a member then click the relation) any day over some method
based on searching by typing the street name (which is what you need
with addr:street), thank you very much.

YMMV. I'm using JOSM and Vespucci.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 24/01/2015, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> On 24.01.2015 13:12, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> Recomended isn't mandatory. The name tag of associatedStreet is only
>> of use to mappers (to find the relation in the editor), not consumers.
>
> Not mandatory, but still used in 93.20% of relations.

Yes.

> So ignoring the relation is not practically feasible.

I don't get that ? Ignoring the relation *name* is not only feasible,
but the right thing to do for consumers like nominatim.

>> "hindered" is a matter of perspective. With associatedStreet one can
>> change a house's street address using only the mouse. When a house is
>> already in a relation, changing its housenumber is just as easy as
>> with addr:street.
>
> It's not a matter of perspective that the most common use case (adding
> addresses from scratch) is still not helped by relations. Clicking on
> the building and entering number and street name in a form is also a
> very natural interface for those not familiar with advanced tools,
> making any overhead pointless.

You see "hindered", "not helped", "overhead" where I see a workflow
that is both simpler (less typing, which is nice on desktop and
invaluable on mobile devices) and more powerful (preparing a
housenumber survey by armchair-mapping buildings and
associatedStreet). I know full well that many people can't place
"simpler" and "relations" in the same sentence, but it's not a
universal fact : it is a matter of perspective.

>> Basic tasks are never going to be relation-free. Multipolygons, bus
>> routes, turn restrictions... The more complete osm will get, the more
>> impossible it'll be to avoid relations.
>
> Even if all bus routes and turn restrictions were mapped in OSM, they
> would still only affect a small amount of roads in the database. Mapping
> every address with associatedStreet relations, on the other hand, would
> affect almost every street in a settlement.
>
> In fact, if every address today was mapped with associatedStreet
> relations, that relation type would be more common than every other
> relation type combined!
>
> So avoiding associatedStreet would of course not remove the problem
> entirely. But it would make the problem so much smaller that getting rid
> of it is absolutely worth it.

I'm not sure which simile will make most sense to you, but in the
domain of databases and programming it is considered very important to
detect errors as soon as possible, so that they can be corrected
before they spread to other data or the related information goes
missing.

Here we have "newbies have trouble with relations" as a source of
errors. If relations are rare in the db, it's be a long while before
the newbie notices, and he'll have messed up plenty of data. If they
are common, mappers will realise earlyer that they need to be taken
into account, and will commit less errors overall. If they are common,
tool support will improve and the number of errors will diminish.

Removing associatedStreet from the db today will only remove 6% of
relations. That's hardly going to make a dent in the error rate.
Improving editor support (I gave iD a try yesterday and was surprised
at how cumbersome it is for relation) should yield much better
results.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 24/01/2015, Andreas Goss  wrote:
>> A novice user will hardly break an associatedStreet relation
>
> Remove house. Replace with new outline at the same place. Add tags
> again. Done. associatedStreet relation broken.

Your editor will probably hace displayed a warning at step 1. At the
end of the operation, you've got a house missing it street, not a
fully broken relation.

That's nitpicking, I know. How about "breaking" addr:street addresses
to compare ?

* Same remove/replace/add steps with a typo when readding addr:street
("what ? but I picked the automcomplete suggestion !"). Actually, that
works without the remove/replace steps as well.
* Add a new addr:housenumber but forget/ignore to add addr:street
(would be no different with associatedStreet, except the local
newbie's work will have been prepared by the armchair veteran)
* Change the name of a street (btw, newbies often use iD and dont know
how to search objects by tag). Much more common than you think if you
consider street that have not been named yet or that have been split
at the wrong spot.

The point is not that associatedStreet relations are unbreakable, but
that there are less opportunities for breakage than there is with
addr:street.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Tobias Knerr]

On 24.01.2015 13:12, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> Recomended isn't mandatory. The name tag of associatedStreet is only
> of use to mappers (to find the relation in the editor), not consumers.

Not mandatory, but still used in 93.20% of relations. So ignoring the
relation is not practically feasible.

> "hindered" is a matter of perspective. With associatedStreet one can
> change a house's street address using only the mouse. When a house is
> already in a relation, changing its housenumber is just as easy as
> with addr:street.

It's not a matter of perspective that the most common use case (adding
addresses from scratch) is still not helped by relations. Clicking on
the building and entering number and street name in a form is also a
very natural interface for those not familiar with advanced tools,
making any overhead pointless.

> Basic tasks are never going to be relation-free. Multipolygons, bus
> routes, turn restrictions... The more complete osm will get, the more
> impossible it'll be to avoid relations.

Even if all bus routes and turn restrictions were mapped in OSM, they
would still only affect a small amount of roads in the database. Mapping
every address with associatedStreet relations, on the other hand, would
affect almost every street in a settlement.

In fact, if every address today was mapped with associatedStreet
relations, that relation type would be more common than every other
relation type combined!

So avoiding associatedStreet would of course not remove the problem
entirely. But it would make the problem so much smaller that getting rid
of it is absolutely worth it.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 24/01/2015, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> On 23.01.2015 21:53, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> The counter-argument is that a novice is less likely to break the data
>> when updating an area that is mapped using associatedStreet. I like
>> the fact the fact that people need not even be aware of addresses in
>> order to fix a street name.
>
> That's not really true, the name tag on the relation is "recommended".
> So the newbie would have to be aware of the relation to edit the name
> both on the relation and the ways.

Recomended isn't mandatory. The name tag of associatedStreet is only
of use to mappers (to find the relation in the editor), not consumers.
The actual street name is on the way, not the relation. I never fill
"name" on assosiatedStreet. If you want a relation whose "name" tag is
used as addressing data, see the street relation instead.

> Even ignoring that, operations hindered by relations (especially mapping
> new addresses, but also renaming only part of a street, changing the
> street of a house's address, ...) are *a lot* more common than your
> example. Even if we had mapped addresses to completion, addresses would
> still change a lot more often than street names.

"hindered" is a matter of perspective. With associatedStreet one can
change a house's street address using only the mouse. When a house is
already in a relation, changing its housenumber is just as easy as
with addr:street.

>> Given that relations in general are not going away, the proper
>> solution to the "novices have trouble with relations" problem is not
>> to use less relations but to make relations easyer to edit and better
>> documented.
>
> Few are going to read documentation when they just start out editing, so
> basic tasks really need to be relation-free to ensure a good experience.
> Streets, buildings and addresses are some of the most basic concepts
> there are, which makes associatedStreet so problematic.

Basic tasks are never going to be relation-free. Multipolygons, bus
routes, turn restrictions... The more complete osm will get, the more
impossible it'll be to avoid relations.

In my experience, newbies tend to start with very small changesets,
mainly tag updates, potentially a new POI. If a newbie were to add
housenumbers as one of his/her early changeset (slightly unlikely
activity for a newbie, housenumbers aren't the most exciting thing to
map), having the house already traced and in a relation will ensure
that the address data is complete (with street) from the begining.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Andreas Goss]

A novice user will hardly break an associatedStreet relation


Remove house. Replace with new outline at the same place. Add tags 
again. Done. associatedStreet relation broken.

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Andreas Goss]

The counter-argument is that a novice is less likely to break the data
when updating an area that is mapped using associatedStreet. I like
the fact the fact that people need not even be aware of addresses in
order to fix a street name.


I disagree. Awareness is exactly what you need. I destroyed many of them 
in the beginning, because I remapped areas andt replaces nodes with the 
proper outlines etc.



Being able to add/fix housenumbers without
having to worry about addr:street (which would be very cumbersome on
mobile devices editors - editing while surveying FTW) is also a big
plus.


I really don't get this. If you are able to add house numbers, why would 
you be likely to fuck up street names? If at all seeing addr:street when 
on the ground is good, because you can be sure it's you are adding it to 
the right building and can also fix possible street errors. It's not 
like every street relation is perfect. I also don't get what's 
cumbersome of having a line for street name on your mobile device editor.



Given that relations in general are not going away, the proper
solution to the "novices have trouble with relations" problem is not
to use less relations but to make relations easyer to edit and better
documented. FWIW, I feel there is slow but steady progress in that
domain.


Considering that we get more and more editors that are specilized on 
adding just a certain kind of feature that's not going to happen. Yes, 
relations won't go away, but if I make a very simple map and specilaized 
editor I can usually ignore them.


One good example is https://openbeermap.github.io/
Adding simple stuff like name and opening hours to a few basic amenities 
isn't something that requires you to bother with relations. If they 
wanted to inlude addresses then it would be 100x easier for them to just 
add 4 lines for the addr: tags which use exactly the same code as the 
other already existing fields. With a associatedStreet relation this 
would take a lot more effort.

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Tobias Knerr]

On 23.01.2015 21:53, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> The counter-argument is that a novice is less likely to break the data
> when updating an area that is mapped using associatedStreet. I like
> the fact the fact that people need not even be aware of addresses in
> order to fix a street name.

That's not really true, the name tag on the relation is "recommended".
So the newbie would have to be aware of the relation to edit the name
both on the relation and the ways.

Even ignoring that, operations hindered by relations (especially mapping
new addresses, but also renaming only part of a street, changing the
street of a house's address, ...) are *a lot* more common than your
example. Even if we had mapped addresses to completion, addresses would
still change a lot more often than street names.

> Given that relations in general are not going away, the proper
> solution to the "novices have trouble with relations" problem is not
> to use less relations but to make relations easyer to edit and better
> documented.

Few are going to read documentation when they just start out editing, so
basic tasks really need to be relation-free to ensure a good experience.
Streets, buildings and addresses are some of the most basic concepts
there are, which makes associatedStreet so problematic.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Warin]

On 24/01/2015 11:07 AM, Christian Quest wrote:

Le 22/01/2015 22:49, Johan C a écrit :

Good to have this discussion. From a computer expert point-of-view
relations are fantastic for data integrity and to keep database size
low. From an OSM point-of-view, which includes being friendly towards
novice users, relations should be avoided whenever possible. And
associatedStreet relations are avoidable.


If simplicity is our new mantra, who will be the first propose to
deprecate the public_transport relation based tagging scheme ?


If you wait too long .. might be me :)  I've a few transport route 
around me tht need work .. but I'm yet to look into that 'feature'.


At the moment I have Consistency flagged .. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Warin61/diary/34267

And I've flagged logic next ..
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Jo]

Not me.   Oh, that was a rethorical question.

Polyglot

2015-01-24 1:07 GMT+01:00 Christian Quest :

>
> Le 22/01/2015 22:49, Johan C a écrit :
> > Good to have this discussion. From a computer expert point-of-view
> > relations are fantastic for data integrity and to keep database size
> > low. From an OSM point-of-view, which includes being friendly towards
> > novice users, relations should be avoided whenever possible. And
> > associatedStreet relations are avoidable.
>
> A novice user will hardly break an associatedStreet relation, but will
> more often break addr:* when updating a streetname without updating
> related addresses.
> It is much harder to detect the second at the QA level.
>
> If simplicity is our new mantra, who will be the first propose to
> deprecate the public_transport relation based tagging scheme ?
>
> --
> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Christian Quest]

Le 22/01/2015 22:49, Johan C a écrit :
> Good to have this discussion. From a computer expert point-of-view
> relations are fantastic for data integrity and to keep database size
> low. From an OSM point-of-view, which includes being friendly towards
> novice users, relations should be avoided whenever possible. And
> associatedStreet relations are avoidable.

A novice user will hardly break an associatedStreet relation, but will
more often break addr:* when updating a streetname without updating
related addresses.
It is much harder to detect the second at the QA level.

If simplicity is our new mantra, who will be the first propose to
deprecate the public_transport relation based tagging scheme ?

-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 23/01/2015 20:53, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:

+1 to all of that


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Jo]

2015-01-23 21:53 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo :

> On 22/01/2015, Johan C  wrote:
> > From an OSM point-of-view, which includes being friendly towards novice
> > users, relations should be avoided whenever possible. And
> associatedStreet
> > relations are avoidable.
>
> The counter-argument is that a novice is less likely to break the data
> when updating an area that is mapped using associatedStreet. I like
> the fact the fact that people need not even be aware of addresses in
> order to fix a street name. Being able to add/fix housenumbers without
> having to worry about addr:street (which would be very cumbersome on
> mobile devices editors - editing while surveying FTW) is also a big
> plus.
>
> Given that relations in general are not going away, the proper
> solution to the "novices have trouble with relations" problem is not
> to use less relations but to make relations easyer to edit and better
> documented. FWIW, I feel there is slow but steady progress in that
> domain.
>

+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 23/01/2015 21:53, moltonel 3x Combo a écrit :

Given that relations in general are not going away, the proper
solution to the "novices have trouble with relations" problem is not
to use less relations but to make relations easyer to edit and better
documented. FWIW, I feel there is slow but steady progress in that
domain.

+1
--
FrViPofm

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 22/01/2015, Johan C  wrote:
> From an OSM point-of-view, which includes being friendly towards novice
> users, relations should be avoided whenever possible. And associatedStreet
> relations are avoidable.

The counter-argument is that a novice is less likely to break the data
when updating an area that is mapped using associatedStreet. I like
the fact the fact that people need not even be aware of addresses in
order to fix a street name. Being able to add/fix housenumbers without
having to worry about addr:street (which would be very cumbersome on
mobile devices editors - editing while surveying FTW) is also a big
plus.

Given that relations in general are not going away, the proper
solution to the "novices have trouble with relations" problem is not
to use less relations but to make relations easyer to edit and better
documented. FWIW, I feel there is slow but steady progress in that
domain.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Johan C]

Good to have this discussion. From a computer expert point-of-view
relations are fantastic for data integrity and to keep database size low.
>From an OSM point-of-view, which includes being friendly towards novice
users, relations should be avoided whenever possible. And associatedStreet
relations are avoidable.

Cheers, Johan

2015-01-22 21:46 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert :

> Hi,
>
> Am 2015-01-22 um 16:14 schrieb Vincent Pottier:
> > Le 22/01/2015 14:00, althio a écrit :
> >>> Hi all - does anyone know what the geographic distribution of
> >>> associatedStreet is like? taginfo doesn't render a map (it seems it
> >>> doesn't do that for relations).
> > UK 
> ~9000
> > PL  ~1700
> > CZ  ~ 100
> > HU  ~ 130
> > SE  >
> 900
> > RU  1850
> > FR is down
> > No stats for DE
> >> This shows a map, I don't know if this is what you are looking for:
> >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=associatedStreet#map
> >>
> >>
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=associatedStreet#combinations
> >> also shows that
> >> 61 307 / 218 176 = 28.10% are also tagged with ref:FR:FANTOIR=*
> >> so from France.
> > 28 % at least !
>
> Overpass-API results for Germany (count function which is marked as
> experimental): 48.732 relations (I did not count their members)
>
> housenumbers in Germany total (including those which belong to
> associatedStreet relations): 7.762.395 [1]
>
> For comparison, number of addr:housenumber (number of associatedStreet
> relations in brackets, copied from above) in
> United Kingdom: 840 437 (9000)
> Poland: 5 173 771 (1700)
> Czech Republic: 2 824 442 (100)
> Hungary: 64 276 (130)
> Sweden: 341 533 (900)
> Russia: 2 444 832 (1850)
>
> [1] data from 2015-01-11, user Gehrke,
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Gehrke#Entwicklung_des_Adressbestandes
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Michael Reichert]

Am 2015-01-22 um 21:41 schrieb Michael Reichert:
> Worldwide, 3,573,027 objects are member of an associatedStreet relation
> and have the role "house". [1,2] 49,260,005 objects are tagged with
> addr:housenumber=*. That's why 7.2 % of all adresses in OSM are mapped
> using relations.


[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/relations/associatedStreet
[2] There are  7114 objects which have the role "address". But they are
only 0.2 % of all housenumber members of associatedStreet relations.
That's why ignored them in my calculation.


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

Am 2015-01-22 um 16:14 schrieb Vincent Pottier:
> Le 22/01/2015 14:00, althio a écrit :
>>> Hi all - does anyone know what the geographic distribution of
>>> associatedStreet is like? taginfo doesn't render a map (it seems it
>>> doesn't do that for relations).
> UK  ~9000
> PL  ~1700
> CZ  ~ 100
> HU  ~ 130
> SE  >  900
> RU  1850
> FR is down
> No stats for DE
>> This shows a map, I don't know if this is what you are looking for:
>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=associatedStreet#map
>>
>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=associatedStreet#combinations
>> also shows that
>> 61 307 / 218 176 = 28.10% are also tagged with ref:FR:FANTOIR=*
>> so from France.
> 28 % at least !

Overpass-API results for Germany (count function which is marked as
experimental): 48.732 relations (I did not count their members)

housenumbers in Germany total (including those which belong to
associatedStreet relations): 7.762.395 [1]

For comparison, number of addr:housenumber (number of associatedStreet
relations in brackets, copied from above) in
United Kingdom: 840 437 (9000)
Poland: 5 173 771 (1700)
Czech Republic: 2 824 442 (100)
Hungary: 64 276 (130)
Sweden: 341 533 (900)
Russia: 2 444 832 (1850)

[1] data from 2015-01-11, user Gehrke,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Gehrke#Entwicklung_des_Adressbestandes

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Dan,

Am 2015-01-22 um 13:06 schrieb Dan S:
> 2015-01-22 6:53 GMT+00:00 Marc Gemis :
>> It seems like the German community started some voting process on the
>> deprecation of the associatedStreet-relation (it was on the mailing list and
>> on the forum).
>>
>> Discussion is going on on the wiki
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:associatedStreet
> 
> Hi all - does anyone know what the geographic distribution of
> associatedStreet is like? taginfo doesn't render a map (it seems it
> doesn't do that for relations). I hear rumours it's mainly Germany but
> it'd be handy to know.

Worldwide, 3,573,027 objects are member of an associatedStreet relation
and have the role "house". [1,2] 49,260,005 objects are tagged with
addr:housenumber=*. That's why 7.2 % of all adresses in OSM are mapped
using relations.

Best regards

Michael





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 22/01/2015 14:00, althio a écrit :

Hi all - does anyone know what the geographic distribution of
associatedStreet is like? taginfo doesn't render a map (it seems it
doesn't do that for relations).

UK  ~9000
PL  ~1700
CZ  ~ 100
HU  ~ 130
SE  >  900
RU  1850
FR is down
No stats for DE

This shows a map, I don't know if this is what you are looking for:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=associatedStreet#map

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=associatedStreet#combinations
also shows that
61 307 / 218 176 = 28.10% are also tagged with ref:FR:FANTOIR=*
so from France.

28 % at least !

--
FrViPofm
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[althio]

> Hi all - does anyone know what the geographic distribution of
> associatedStreet is like? taginfo doesn't render a map (it seems it
> doesn't do that for relations).

This shows a map, I don't know if this is what you are looking for:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=associatedStreet#map

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=associatedStreet#combinations
also shows that
61 307 / 218 176 = 28.10% are also tagged with ref:FR:FANTOIR=*
so from France.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Dan S]

2015-01-22 6:53 GMT+00:00 Marc Gemis :
> It seems like the German community started some voting process on the
> deprecation of the associatedStreet-relation (it was on the mailing list and
> on the forum).
>
> Discussion is going on on the wiki
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:associatedStreet

Hi all - does anyone know what the geographic distribution of
associatedStreet is like? taginfo doesn't render a map (it seems it
doesn't do that for relations). I hear rumours it's mainly Germany but
it'd be handy to know.

Best
Dan

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[althio althio]

> It is not as formal as a proposal voting. I would like to know how the 
> community (those who vote) think about associatedStreet relations. I think 
> that in Germany the majority does not like them (anymore).
> I will announce a end date. This end date will be date of announcement of end 
> of voting + 14 days.
> German forum and talk-de have been notified by myself. You may notify your 
> local community if it will not read the next issue(s) of weeklyOSM.

Alright Michael, thanks for the details.
Now that the international tagging list is notified thanks to this
thread, I guess it does not really matter.
But the starting process looked biased towards the German community.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

althio

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,


Am 22. Januar 2015 11:45:47 MEZ, schrieb althio althio :
> > Please vote here:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:associatedStreet
> 
> Is this a formal voting?

It is not as formal as a proposal voting. I would like to know how the 
community (those who vote) think about associatedStreet relations. I think that 
in Germany the majority does not like them (anymore).

> Is there a date for start and end vote?

No, there is no end date at the moment. Start date was yesterday. I will 
announce a end date. This end date will be date of announcement of end of 
voting + 14 days.

> It looks strange, hidden on a Talk:page without the usual template or
> RFC or call for votes on the international mailing lists.

German forum and talk-de have been notified by myself. You may notify your 
local community if it will not read the next issue(s) of weeklyOSM.

Best regards

Michael
-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde auf einem Smartphone verfasst, ist daher nicht 
GPG-signiert und enthält Tippfejler.
This message was been written on a smartphone. That's why it is not GPG-signed 
and may contain tyops.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[althio althio]

> Please vote here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:associatedStreet

Is this a formal voting?
Is there a date for start and end vote?

It looks strange, hidden on a Talk:page without the usual template or
RFC or call for votes on the international mailing lists.

althio

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

Am 2015-01-22 um 07:53 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> It seems like the German community started some voting process on the
> deprecation of the associatedStreet-relation (it was on the mailing list
> and on the forum).

Right: I iniated the discussion.

> Discussion is going on on the wiki
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:associatedStreet

Please vote here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:associatedStreet

Best regards

Michael



-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

[Marc Gemis]

It seems like the German community started some voting process on the
deprecation of the associatedStreet-relation (it was on the mailing list
and on the forum).

Discussion is going on on the wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:associatedStreet

regards

m.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging