Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-24 Thread Peter Elderson
Option 1
addr:range=* specifies the increment

addr:range=even
addr:housenumber=2..250

if .. is used, a hyphen combined with a range can be handled.

addr:range=odd
addr:housenumber=200-01..200-91

In these examples, a default of 2 would simplify things: .. infers a range,
increment is default 2 and - is never a range indicator.

Error to be expected: people just copying the housenumber plate may use
2-250.
When using the explicit addr:range tag, the format error may be detected
because .. is missing.

Peter Elderson


Op do 24 dec. 2020 om 15:12 schreef Paul Allen :

> On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 10:14, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>> maybe we should add an expression marker, like {10..20} to make it more
>> explicit and avoid confusion with typos?
>>
>
> In programming, you also have the ability to define the increment,
> which defaults to 1 if left unspecified.  That way you can distinguish
> between 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 10, 12, 14, 16 (or even
> 10, 13, 16).  You could argue that for addresses the increment
> ought to default to 2, since that is most commonly encountered.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 24. Dez. 2020 um 00:22 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson <
pelder...@gmail.com>:

> 10..20, meaning 10 up to and including 20
>



I don't know if it is just you, but there are already some few examples for
this in the db:
17
*wa**s:**ra**il**wa**y:**20**12**..**20**14*

5
*wa**s:**ra**il**wa**y:**20**01**..**20**12*

1
*bu**il**di**ng**:~**19**63**..**19**64*

1
*hi**st**or**ic**:C**13**..**.1**88*1

1
*na**me**:1**70**0.**.1**76**0-**17**80*

1
*na**me**:1**97**0-**19**90**..**20**05*

0
*bu**il**di**ng**:l**ev**el**:1**,2**,3**..*.




Btw. this one seems to be triggering a bug in taginfo:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=building%3Alevel%3A1%2C2%2C3...

I like the .. syntax, intuitive if you know sequence expressions from bash.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-23 Thread ipswichmapper--- via Tagging
It says in the proposal the the vertical bar is an alternative. You can still 
use hypens, however vertical bar is more explicit. With a addr:range however 
hypens should be enough.
-- 


23 Dec 2020, 22:59 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> As I understand, it would mean that 40-48 range would need to be
> recorded as addr:housenumber=40|48 rather than more natural
> addr:housenumber=40-48
>
> Dec 23, 2020, 21:06 by t...@fitchfamily.org:
>
>> Vertical bar character is already in use for turn lanes[1]. Not a big deal 
>> to type it, at least on a US keyboard. Certainly easier to type it than to 
>> enter two key/value pairs for the same information. Seems like a poor reason 
>> to avoid it since it is one of the few characters that seems unlikely to 
>> exist on an address in the wild.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Turning_indications_per_lane
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not so happy about it.
>>>
>>> Typing that would be extremely unnatural.
>>>
>>> Maybe better have additional add:range:from= addr:range:to=
>>> for ranges?
>>>
>>> Dec 23, 2020, 20:10 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>>> Im gping to update the proposal tonight, when I have time.
>>>
>>> I currently think suggesting a new character, | , used to explicitally 
>>> specify ranges. The advantage of this is that ypu can interpolation 
>>> hypenated addresses, e.g. :
>>>
>>> addr:housenumber="19-100|19-200"
>>>
>>> Would imply : 19-100, 19-102, 19-104, 19-106 etc.
>>>
>>> Renderers can use "19-100 to 19-200"
>>>
>>> Hypens would be accepted, but this is clearer.
>>>
>>> The problem is that now you will have to get every single renderer and 
>>> geocoder to understand this (which will take months ,even years).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 23 Dec 2020, 16:29 by lon...@denofr.de:
>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 07:05:10PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging 
>>> wrote:
>>> Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".
>>>
>>> This new tag:
>>>
>>> - applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
>>> - "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
>>> - "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
>>> - "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a 
>>> housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
>>> - "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values 
>>> but rather a single housenumber.
>>>
>>> It's better. It would resolve half the issue. addr:housenumber would still
>>> have a double interpretation but it's the smaller of the two issues.
>>>
>>> addr:housenumber:range would capture a bit better what the tag means
>>> but it starts to get uncomfortably long.
>>> "addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and what 
>>> software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple 
>>> housenumbers are tagged like this.
>>>
>>> That would only make sense, when you define addr:range as being
>>> applicable to housenumbers with hyphens only. However your definition
>>> above was imo more sensible:
>>> "applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber"
>>>
>>> If you look at all nodes and ways with addr:housenumbers 99.999% have
>>> a addr:range=no. So that makes more sense as a default then.
>>> However, software can create different defaults for different countries. 
>>> For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of 
>>> even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")
>>>
>>> What are your thoughts on this?
>>> Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how 
>>> addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is 
>>> the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require 
>>> informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.
>>>
>>> My guess would be that the main reason that people started using the
>>> hyphen notation with addr:housenumber is that they wanted something
>>> human readable on the map. And addr:housenumber was already rendered.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, I think there is a reasonable way forward even for
>>> a addr:range tag as you suggest and also for a separate
>>> addr:housenumber_range=1-15 like I would prefer. For both it is relatively
>>> easy to support a new agreed on proposal while still using the old
>>> behaviour where the new one is not yet implemented. So the transition would
>>> be:
>>>
>>> 1. Agree on proposal.
>>> 2. Get openstreetmap-carto, Nominatim and others to support new proposal.
>>> 3. Tell mappers about proposal.
>>> 4. Wait a few years.
>>> 5. Drop support for addr:housenumbers with interpolations.
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> IpswichMapper
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> 21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by lon...@denofr.de:
>>>
>>> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-23 Thread ipswichmapper--- via Tagging
Hello everyone,

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:range

Here is the updated page. There may be some mistakes / it may not be completely 
done yet, but it gives a rough overview of addr:range.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper-- 
 Sent with Tutanota, the secure & ad-free mailbox: 
 https://tutanota.com


23 Dec 2020, 21:04 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> Thats what the addr:range tag is for
>
> I have explained this in a previous message on this mailing list. I'll update 
> the wiki proposal page so that it much clearer how addr:range works compared 
> to trying to explain in on a mailing list.
>
> Thanks, 
> IpseichMapper 
> -- 
>
>
>
> 23 Dec 2020, 20:38 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>>> On 23. Dec 2020, at 20:12, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> addr:housenumber="19-100|19-200"
>>>
>>> Would imply : 19-100, 19-102, 19-104, 19-106 etc.
>>>
>>
>>
>> it could also imply 19-100, 19-101, 19-102...
>> and you also can’t know which numbers are included and which do not exist 
>>
>> Cheers Martin
>>
>
>

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-23 Thread Sarah Hoffmann
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 07:05:10PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
> Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".
> 
> This new tag:
> 
> - applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
> - "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
> - "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
> - "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a 
> housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
> - "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but 
> rather a single housenumber.

It's better. It would resolve half the issue. addr:housenumber would still
have a double interpretation but it's the smaller of the two issues.

addr:housenumber:range would capture a bit better what the tag means
but it starts to get uncomfortably long.

> "addr:range=all" is the default  because that is what the wiki says and what 
> software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple 
> housenumbers are tagged like this.

That would only make sense, when you define addr:range as being
applicable to housenumbers with hyphens only. However your definition
above was imo more sensible:
"applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber"

If you look at all nodes and ways with addr:housenumbers 99.999% have
a addr:range=no. So that makes more sense as a default then.

> However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For 
> example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of 
> even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?
> Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation 
> on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with 
> suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple 
> mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.

My guess would be that the main reason that people started using the
hyphen notation with addr:housenumber is that they wanted something
human readable on the map. And addr:housenumber was already rendered.

With that in mind, I think there is a reasonable way forward even for
a addr:range tag as you suggest and also for a separate
addr:housenumber_range=1-15 like I would prefer. For both it is relatively
easy to support a new agreed on proposal while still using the old
behaviour where the new one is not yet implemented. So the transition would
be:

1. Agree on proposal.
2. Get openstreetmap-carto, Nominatim and others to support new proposal.
3. Tell mappers about proposal.
4. Wait a few years.
5. Drop support for addr:housenumbers with interpolations.

Sarah

> 
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
> -- 
> 
> 
> 21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by lon...@denofr.de:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
> >>
> >> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows 
> >> from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
> >>
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.
> >>
> >
> > I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
> > support it in Nominatim in the past. See
> > https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.
> >
> > The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
> > addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.
> >
> > Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
> > to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
> > you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
> > to the addr:housenumber tag.
> >
> > Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
> > different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
> > building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
> > housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
> > and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.
> >
> > I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
> > But I might be fighting wind mills here.
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 

> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-21 Thread ipswichmapper--- via Tagging
How would this break routing and navigation? As far as I know, geocoders 
currently read hypenated addresses as ranges anyway (correct me if I'm wrong) 
so this proposal won't change what happens to hypenated addresses without 
addr:range tag. (Ime. Navigation is already broken in NYC)

IpswichMapper
---


21 Dec 2020, 19:44 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:15 PM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by this? You would have to tag with addr:range=no, as that 
>> is not a default value.
>>
>> However, don't see this as a downside. Currently, software such as OSMand 
>> interprets hypenated addresses as a range anyway, so requirement to  tag 
>> addr:range=no would be a benefit.
>>
>
> Ouch.  So every building in Queens, NY (one of the five boroughs of New York 
> City, with about 2.3 million inhabitants) would need to have an 
> 'addr:range=no' tag added in order not to break routing and navigation there?
>
>
> -- 
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-21 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:15 PM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> What do you mean by this? You would have to tag with addr:range=no, as
> that is not a default value.
>
> However, don't see this as a downside. Currently, software such as OSMand
> interprets hypenated addresses as a range anyway, so requirement to  tag
> addr:range=no would be a benefit.
>

Ouch.  So every building in Queens, NY (one of the five boroughs of New
York City, with about 2.3 million inhabitants) would need to have an
'addr:range=no' tag added in order not to break routing and navigation
there?


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-21 Thread ipswichmapper--- via Tagging
What do you mean by this? You would have to tag with addr:range=no, as that is 
not a default value.

However, don't see this as a downside. Currently, software such as OSMand 
interprets hypenated addresses as a range anyway, so requirement to  tag 
addr:range=no would be a benefit.

IpswichMapper
-- 
 


21 Dec 2020, 18:27 by zelonew...@gmail.com:

> Would this work for addressing schemes that use a hyphenated prefix?
>
> In Hawaii, addresses outside of the city of Honolulu use a two-digit prefix 
> in addresses to determine which sector of the island an address is located.  
> So an address might be something like "99-123 Kamehameha Highway".  Would 
> this scheme work for an apartment complex that's addressed something like 
> 99-100 through 99-200 ?
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:15 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> I like this new tag.
>>
>> I had proposing something like that on my TODO list.
>>
>> I added it in >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96211869 
>> 
>> to mark addr:housenumber=1-3 as a single address, not a range
>> (based on survey that I remember well)
>>
>> Dec 21, 2020, 19:05 by >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> :
>>
>>> Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".
>>>
>>> This new tag:
>>>
>>> - applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
>>> - "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
>>> - "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
>>> - "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a 
>>> housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
>>> - "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values 
>>> but rather a single housenumber.
>>>
>>> "addr:range=all" is the default  because that is what the wiki says and 
>>> what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple 
>>> housenumbers are tagged like this.
>>>
>>> However, software can create different defaults for different countries. 
>>> For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of 
>>> even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")
>>>
>>> What are your thoughts on this?
>>>
>>> Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how 
>>> addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is 
>>> the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require 
>>> informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> IpswichMapper
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>> 21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by >>> lon...@denofr.de>>> :
>>>
 On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging 
 wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
>
> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This 
> follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
>
>
> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.
>

 I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
 support it in Nominatim in the past. See
 https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565  for the full 
 disucssion.

 The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
 addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.

 Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586  So to know if the tag 
 needs
 to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
 you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
 to the addr:housenumber tag.

 Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
 different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
 building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
 housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
 and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.

 I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
 But I might be fighting wind mills here.

 Sarah


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

>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>>  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] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-21 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Would this work for addressing schemes that use a hyphenated prefix?

In Hawaii, addresses outside of the city of Honolulu use a two-digit prefix
in addresses to determine which sector of the island an address is
located.  So an address might be something like "99-123 Kamehameha
Highway".  Would this scheme work for an apartment complex that's addressed
something like 99-100 through 99-200 ?

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:15 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I like this new tag.
>
> I had proposing something like that on my TODO list.
>
> I added it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96211869
> 
> to mark addr:housenumber=1-3 as a single address, not a range
> (based on survey that I remember well)
>
> Dec 21, 2020, 19:05 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>
> Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".
>
> This new tag:
>
> - applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
> - "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
> - "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
> - "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a
> housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
> - "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values
> but rather a single housenumber.
>
> "addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and
> what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple
> housenumbers are tagged like this.
>
> However, software can create different defaults for different countries.
> For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of
> even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
>
> Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how
> addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is
> the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require
> informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>
> --
>
>
> 21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by lon...@denofr.de:
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging
> wrote:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
>
> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows
> from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
>
>
> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.
>
>
> I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
> support it in Nominatim in the past. See
> https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full
> disucssion.
>
> The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
> addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.
>
> Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
> to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
> you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
> to the addr:housenumber tag.
>
> Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
> different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
> building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
> housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
> and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.
>
> I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
> But I might be fighting wind mills here.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-21 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
I like this new tag.

I had proposing something like that on my TODO list.

I added it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96211869 

to mark addr:housenumber=1-3 as a single address, not a range
(based on survey that I remember well)

Dec 21, 2020, 19:05 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".
>
> This new tag:
>
> - applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
> - "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
> - "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
> - "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a 
> housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
> - "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but 
> rather a single housenumber.
>
> "addr:range=all" is the default  because that is what the wiki says and what 
> software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple 
> housenumbers are tagged like this.
>
> However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For 
> example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of 
> even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
>
> Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation 
> on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with 
> suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple 
> mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>
> -- 
>
>
> 21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by lon...@denofr.de:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
>>>
>>> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows 
>>> from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
>>>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.
>>>
>>
>> I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
>> support it in Nominatim in the past. See
>> https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.
>>
>> The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
>> addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.
>>
>> Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
>> to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
>> you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
>> to the addr:housenumber tag.
>>
>> Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
>> different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
>> building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
>> housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
>> and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.
>>
>> I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
>> But I might be fighting wind mills here.
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-21 Thread ipswichmapper--- via Tagging
Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".

This new tag:

- applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
- "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
- "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
- "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a 
housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
- "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but 
rather a single housenumber.

"addr:range=all" is the default  because that is what the wiki says and what 
software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple 
housenumbers are tagged like this.

However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For 
example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd 
addresses (so "addr:range=2")

What are your thoughts on this?
Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation 
on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with 
suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple 
mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper
-- 


21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by lon...@denofr.de:

> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
>>
>> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows 
>> from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
>>
>>
>> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.
>>
>
> I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
> support it in Nominatim in the past. See
> https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.
>
> The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
> addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.
>
> Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
> to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
> you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
> to the addr:housenumber tag.
>
> Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
> different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
> building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
> housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
> and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.
>
> I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
> But I might be fighting wind mills here.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-21 Thread Sarah Hoffmann
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
> 
> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows 
> from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
> 
> 
> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.

I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
support it in Nominatim in the past. See
https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.

The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.

Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
to the addr:housenumber tag.

Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.

I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
But I might be fighting wind mills here.

Sarah


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


[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-21 Thread ipswichmapper--- via Tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes

Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from 
a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html


Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.

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