Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:57 AM Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> Follow-up question on that: are all route relation names/refs mapped as
> route=highway in the US usable as an address part or is that restricted to
> certain routes and/or regions (for example, rural only)?
>
>
It's case-by-case. Near me, New York State Route 146 (which was used as an
example elsewhere) wanders.
There's a stretch of a few blocks
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5640056 and
neighbouring ways) near a shopping mall where it's 'Clifton Park
Boulevard', but nobody knows that name because there are big overhead
direction signs that carry only the route number. On either side, it's
called just 'State Route 146' and has no other name. The post office
prefers '806 [State] Route 146' as a building address, but '806 Clifton
Park Boulevard' is deliverable.
Farther south/west (146 does not have consistent cardinal directions!) 146
is co-aligned with city streets. Balltown Road (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/338036383 etc.) is signed 146, but nobody
calls it anything other than Balltown Road. Addressing mail to '1617 Route
146' would likely face delays and misdeliveries because it woiuld be
ambiguous: 1617 Balltown Road
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/689572012 fronts
on Route 146, but so does 1617 [Upper] Union Street
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/804483895 , and I haven't done the
address points but there's likely a 1617 on Brandywine Avenue
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5646367, Hamburg Street
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53306647 , or Carman Road
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135620106
Beyond Western Avenue, there's a brief stretch
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/159115284 where 146 has no other name.
For a few blocks, it follows Main Street, Maple Avenue, and Township Road
through the village of Altamont. It retains the 'Township Road' name west
to the county line, but the situation is fuzzier. Mail will be addressed to
'1234 Township Road' but a local directing you to a house will tell you to
follow 'Route 146' because there isn't much signage with the formal name
(There is some, so 'unsigned_name' isn't appropriate.) From the county line
to the terminus at Route 443, 146 goes back to having no other name.
In these cases, I don't expect a geocoder to associate a building
automatically with a nearby street, and place the full set of address
fields on every building, entrance or other address point. My preference
would be to put 'New York State Route 146' as the 'name' of the route where
it has no other name, or as 'alt_name' if it has another name but the
locals favor the highway name over the formal name. I think that pairing
'ref=NY 146' with 'State Route 146' is too much to ask of a geocoder, while
asking it to match a partial string ('New York 146', 'State Route 146',
'Route 146' or even just '146') is pretty much all in a day's work for
full-text search engines.
Nevertheless, the last time that I raised this issue, there was an
overwhelming consensus that 'Route 146', in the stretches where that is the
only name, is an unnamed way. For that reason, and quite against my better
judgment, I've been sporadically deleting `name="New York State Highway
146"` when it appears and replacing it with `noname=yes`. I've been doing
this only when I happen to be working on a segment of the way, and only
when I happen to think of it, rather than systematically. This
lackadaisical approach is probably in part because I still don't agree with
the consensus, merely defer to it.
Some side notes to remember:
It's worthy of note that the US has multiple route networks overlaid, with
reuse of numbers. Where this happens, generally speaking, the signs have
distinctive colors and shapes, but it is necessary to keep the authority as
well as the route number. There are crossings (e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.0047/-76.7002) where that's
significant - note the two routes numbered 90. It's uncommon - for
instance, counties often simply skip over the numbers of state routes that
traverse the county when assigning county route numbers - but it happens.
It also is worth noting that the jurisdiction cannot always be deduced from
boundaries. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666565376 is signed 'NY
120A' even though it is in Connecticut.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46691563 is signed 'Vermont 279' in New
York, although the small reference markers on the shoulder (these are
unreadable at speed, and where mapped in New York are unsigned_ref) show
'915G'.
Finally, 'State Highway', as far as I know, is not an official designation
of any road in New York: the state DOT uses 'State Route' consistently for
its numbered routes. Pedantically, there's also 'State Reference Route' for
various numbered routes that are not prominently signed but are
state-maintained. Most of these are either named (e.g., 'Taconic State
Parkway') or connector routes that often bear signs like 'TO NY 5'
--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 04:28:43PM -0400, Jmapb wrote: > On 8/3/2020 6:07 AM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > > There is some fuzzy matching, you can expect to work, for example > > abbreviations like street -> st or even New York -> NY. But going from > > ref=NY-214 to 'State Highway 214' is already a long stretch that requires > > special local knowledge. > > Understood. And this is a little out of scope for the tagging list but I > suspect this kind of long-stretch fuzzy matching for numbered routes > will be necessary to return decent search results for a large portion of > the rural USA -- and I'd guess similar problems will be found in other > countries. > > At least for the New York State routes, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and > HERE seem to get this right. I don't know of any OSM-centric maps that > do, and I'm not savvy enough to know which are using Nominatim and which > aren't. > > (Offhand, AI seems like overkill for this! The variations are pretty > formulaic.) It has already been done before: https://github.com/openvenues/libpostal The problem is that there are 200+ countries, each with their own strange name variation the locals claim to be 'perfectly obvious why wouldn't a geocoder...'. ;) Long-term I'd like to see emerge some kind of community-curated alias database, where mappers can contribute the local variations. But that is still far off. > For now I've had a go with verbose explicit tagging using _name tags as > you've suggested (ignoring JOSM's "alternative name without name" warnings): > > ref=NY 214 > official_name=State Route 214 > alt_name=Route 214;Highway 214;State Highway 214;New > York 214;New York State Route 214 > > I've used the USPS-rectified format for the `official_name`, which isn't > exactly right (`postal_name` might be a better tag) but seems close enough. > > It's unclear to me how useful it is to cram in all those > semicolon-separated values under `alt_name`. Since this update, > Nominatim is now giving decent (one block away) results for "58 State > Route 214, Phoenicia NY" but nothing for "58 State Highway 214, > Phoenicia NY" so maybe I just have to pick a single `alt_name` and maybe > throw in a `local_name`? (Must confess, this sort of shoehorning starts > to feel a little odd.) Now Nominatim screws up the search (ironically because it does shorten 'State Highway' to 'sh') but that is really an implementation issue. Your house has now picked up the right street: https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?osmtype=W=304812543=amenity > * Q) How should `addr:street` be tagged for an address along an > unnamed way which is part of a numbered road-type route relation? Follow-up question on that: are all route relation names/refs mapped as route=highway in the US usable as an address part or is that restricted to certain routes and/or regions (for example, rural only)? Sarah ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
sent from a phone > On 3. Aug 2020, at 23:57, Jmapb wrote: > > The official postal version of the street name may be tagged as > `official_name`; IMHO official_name is not a suitable tag for an officially unnamed road with an official postal name. At least not around here, where streets get officially named by the people (council). Any other name-tag variant would be better Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On 8/3/2020 4:36 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 15:29 Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote: ...Regardless, if this general approach is considered valid and workable, then I'd like to propose the following answer to my original question: * Q) How should `addr:street` be tagged for an address along an unnamed way which is part of a numbered road-type route relation? * A) Check the way for alternative name tags. The official postal version of the street name may be tagged as `official_name`; if so that's a good value for `addr:street`. If the way has other name tags -- such as `alt_name`, `local_name`, `old_name`, or a language-specific name -- those values may be used. It's also possible to use the value of the way's `ref` tag, which should match the name of the route relation. Name is only the name, so most route relations wouldn't have a name. Fair enough. The ones around me have names, but it looks like plenty of them get by with just ref and network. So... * Q) How should `addr:street` be tagged for an address along an unnamed way which is part of a numbered road-type route relation? * A) Check the way for alternative name tags. The official postal version of the street name may be tagged as `official_name`; if so that's a good value for `addr:street`. If the way has other name tags -- such as `alt_name`, `local_name`, `old_name`, or a language-specific name -- those values may be used. It's also possible to use the value of the way's `ref` tag, which should correspond to a route relation that includes the way. Since the number of different variations on how one might address something when the street name is on a numbered route, seems like it's on the data consumer to fuzzy match appropriately to match an imperfect hit. I don't disagree, but I don't mind tagging more if it helps a bit. J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 15:29 Jmapb wrote: > > ...Regardless, if this general approach is considered valid and > workable, then I'd like to propose the following answer to my original > question: > > * Q) How should `addr:street` be tagged for an address along an > unnamed way which is part of a numbered road-type route relation? > * A) Check the way for alternative name tags. The official postal > version of the street name may be tagged as `official_name`; if so > that's a good value for `addr:street`. If the way has other name tags -- > such as `alt_name`, `local_name`, `old_name`, or a language-specific > name -- those values may be used. It's also possible to use the value of > the way's `ref` tag, which should match the name of the route relation. Name is only the name, so most route relations wouldn't have a name. Since the number of different variations on how one might address something when the street name is on a numbered route, seems like it's on the data consumer to fuzzy match appropriately to match an imperfect hit. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On 8/3/2020 6:07 AM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: There is some fuzzy matching, you can expect to work, for example abbreviations like street -> st or even New York -> NY. But going from ref=NY-214 to 'State Highway 214' is already a long stretch that requires special local knowledge. Understood. And this is a little out of scope for the tagging list but I suspect this kind of long-stretch fuzzy matching for numbered routes will be necessary to return decent search results for a large portion of the rural USA -- and I'd guess similar problems will be found in other countries. At least for the New York State routes, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and HERE seem to get this right. I don't know of any OSM-centric maps that do, and I'm not savvy enough to know which are using Nominatim and which aren't. (Offhand, AI seems like overkill for this! The variations are pretty formulaic.) Note that 'on the ground' doesn't always mean that there needs to be a physical sign. I consider an envelope (of a letter) as much on the ground as a street name you get by asking the inhabitants what they call the street they live on. If you want to express these nuances you can always use the different variants of name (offical_name, local_name, old_name, ...). So, yes, in your situation I'd leave out the name tag, add the ref and a couple of *_name tags that contain the names used in the addresses or between locals. The inhabitants call it all of the above. Usually they'll just say "214" (pronounced "two-fourteen.") I'm not inclined to rifle through people's mail, but I assure you that every variation *except* the bare "214" will be written on envelopes and will be delivered. (Assuming the USPS survives the current attempt at extermination.) Nominatim's algorithm currently is to match addr:street with any name or ref tag on a highway (including service, footway, path, etc.) It allows a little bit of fuzziness but ideally you use exactly the same spelling. If nothing is found, it simply uses the nearest street. There is another solution, if you really don't like the requirement of exactly matching names: associatedStreet relations. They do take precedence over the matching as explained above. Using those relations you can use a different addr:street name. Disclaimer: I have a deep dislike of associatedStreet relations and consequently they suffer from a bit of neglect in Nominatim. :) Yes, I've been trying to avoid mentioning associatedStreet! I'm comfortable creating and maintaining these relations as a last resort, but heck they're annoying. We'd prefer a solution that would allow a casual mapper to add or fix addresses along a route. For now I've had a go with verbose explicit tagging using _name tags as you've suggested (ignoring JOSM's "alternative name without name" warnings): ref=NY 214 official_name=State Route 214 alt_name=Route 214;Highway 214;State Highway 214;New York 214;New York State Route 214 I've used the USPS-rectified format for the `official_name`, which isn't exactly right (`postal_name` might be a better tag) but seems close enough. It's unclear to me how useful it is to cram in all those semicolon-separated values under `alt_name`. Since this update, Nominatim is now giving decent (one block away) results for "58 State Route 214, Phoenicia NY" but nothing for "58 State Highway 214, Phoenicia NY" so maybe I just have to pick a single `alt_name` and maybe throw in a `local_name`? (Must confess, this sort of shoehorning starts to feel a little odd.) ...Regardless, if this general approach is considered valid and workable, then I'd like to propose the following answer to my original question: * Q) How should `addr:street` be tagged for an address along an unnamed way which is part of a numbered road-type route relation? * A) Check the way for alternative name tags. The official postal version of the street name may be tagged as `official_name`; if so that's a good value for `addr:street`. If the way has other name tags -- such as `alt_name`, `local_name`, `old_name`, or a language-specific name -- those values may be used. It's also possible to use the value of the way's `ref` tag, which should match the name of the route relation. Thanks all for your thoughtful replies, and let me know if this seems sane. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On 31/07/2020 15.39, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: the authority for names are the local people. I would bet that some of them would refer to this particular road as State Highway 214 if they should name it in a formal way. NY 214 is a ref, no doubt, and is fine to have, but so is State Highway ...and then there is, for example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5640056. According to OSM, this is "Clifton Park Blvd¹", but I don't think I've ever called it anything other than "146". (¹ ...except not abbreviated, but I'm lazy.) -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 06:06:37PM -0400, Jmapb wrote: > On 7/31/2020 4:24 PM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > > Put one of the variants into addr:street and then all the variants > > as alternative names onto the road. Obviously that stretch of road > > is referred to under all these names, so this is what we should map. > > Putting aside the question of *which* variant to put into `addr:street`, > this sounds like an approach that could work. But we might end up with > something like `alt_name=Highway 214;Route 214;State Highway 214;New > York 214;NY-214;New York State Route 214` (or the name_1 ... name_n > equivalents). I could live with that if it actually helped the geocoding > but it's not exactly graceful. The question here is always how much guessing you expect a geocoder to do. We could train the geocoder to do a lot of fuzzy matching on the street name variants as the one above. This may sound like a good idea to make mapping easier for you but in the long run it doesn't help. For one thing, if Nominatim gives you two or three simple rules how the matching works, then you can easily figure out yourself what is going on and fix it. If the matching is more complicated (possibly even involving AI), then you sooner or later run into an issue where you just don't understand why things go wrong. The other problem is that Nominatim is not the only geocoder out there. You may expect one geocoder to do clever things to understand the tagging but there is very little chance that all data users will go through the trouble. So being explicit in your tagging makes the data more useful. There is some fuzzy matching, you can expect to work, for example abbreviations like street -> st or even New York -> NY. But going from ref=NY-214 to 'State Highway 214' is already a long stretch that requires special local knowledge. > > Ultimately, though, these are alternate names for the route, not for the > stretch of road. (Which might have its own list of names! For instance, > a particular stretch of Ulster County Route 40 is known as Main Street, > Plank Road, Old Plank Road, Old Route 28, and Mount Tremper-Phoenicia Road.) > > > It really doesn't matter that the road has officially no name. The > > goal is to map what's on the ground. > > For the road itself, what's on the ground is simply the highway shield > with the number 214. There's no textual version of the name anywhere > (except as used for the addresses of residences and POIs.) Best practice > for these sorts of roads, I'm told, is to omit `name=*`, tag `ref=*`, > and add to a route relation. Note that 'on the ground' doesn't always mean that there needs to be a physical sign. I consider an envelope (of a letter) as much on the ground as a street name you get by asking the inhabitants what they call the street they live on. If you want to express these nuances you can always use the different variants of name (offical_name, local_name, old_name, ...). So, yes, in your situation I'd leave out the name tag, add the ref and a couple of *_name tags that contain the names used in the addresses or between locals. > For the addresses along the road, the vast majority are signed with just > a housenumber, and those POI signs that do include a street name are > inconsistent. Government data sources are also inconsistent. > > But an on-the-ground mapper can observe that those housenumbers belong > to this road, which here is known only by its route number. I feel there > should be a way to encode that observation without asking the mapper to > choose a particular textual representation of the route's name... > especially since it's hard to do that in a consistent manner. > > (Whatever the solution, my aim here is to get an address search that works!) Nominatim's algorithm currently is to match addr:street with any name or ref tag on a highway (including service, footway, path, etc.) It allows a little bit of fuzziness but ideally you use exactly the same spelling. If nothing is found, it simply uses the nearest street. There is another solution, if you really don't like the requirement of exactly matching names: associatedStreet relations. They do take precedence over the matching as explained above. Using those relations you can use a different addr:street name. Disclaimer: I have a deep dislike of associatedStreet relations and consequently they suffer from a bit of neglect in Nominatim. :) Sarah ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On 8/1/20 12:02, Paul Johnson wrote: > For the way: > > name=Humble-Huffman Road > ref=FM 1960 Oops. I got the name wrong, it's Humble Westfield Road, and it only exists in OSM data because I haven't yet surveyed to be sure it's not signed. I'm pretty sure none of the current signs use this name. The "name" on the green signs is FM 1960 (not sure if they have "East" on them, but the addresses do use this directional). > For the address: > addr:street=FM 1960 East That we can agree on. [my original message:] >> I'm on the side that name=* should match what's in addr:street=*, even >> if there's some duplicity, but maybe there should be some other tag to >> say perhaps the name shouldn't be rendered on (most) visual maps and/or >> read out separately from the ref in navigation software. > Problem is, that does not necessarily match the ground truth. In > reality, a lot of addresses have a street name that radically departs > from what the street is signposted as, particularly if the street is > part of a numbered route. It's common because there's only so much > you can cram on an envelope and it's often shorter and easier to > scrawl out "Hwy 12" instead of the street name than whatever the > highway department named it. Drawing from my prior experience as a messenger/courier, there were very few situations where the address I was expected to deliver to did not match the name on the sign. There were a couple of oddball situations such as a couple of addresses off of FM 1960 West (now Cypress Creek Parkway) where the building itself was far enough from the road to make finding it difficult if you didn't know where to look (for the curious, they are 4550 and 4606 among others). The most egregious examples come where there's a complete lack of signage (county roads in Brazoria County being the one that sticks out the most), but again, it's more of there just not being an actual signed name versus a name that doesn't match the sign. It may well be different in greater Houston versus Oklahoma, upstate New York, etc. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:19 AM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 7/31/20 14:29, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, > > ref=NY 214, noname=yes would be the right way. > > How about the stretch of FM 1960 from I-45 or so going east into Humble? > Addresses on it are " FM 1960 East", though I think it used to be > signed as "Humble-Huffman Road" even though nobody puts that in the > addresses anymore. I currently have name=FM 1960 East alongside ref=FM > 1960 (and maybe an alt_name=* too). (For those outside of Texas, FM or > RM is like a lower class of state highway called Farm-/Ranch-To-Market > Roads.) > For the way: name=Humble-Huffman Road ref=FM 1960 For the address: addr:street=FM 1960 East I'm on the side that name=* should match what's in addr:street=*, even > if there's some duplicity, but maybe there should be some other tag to > say perhaps the name shouldn't be rendered on (most) visual maps and/or > read out separately from the ref in navigation software. > Problem is, that does not necessarily match the ground truth. In reality, a lot of addresses have a street name that radically departs from what the street is signposted as, particularly if the street is part of a numbered route. It's common because there's only so much you can cram on an envelope and it's often shorter and easier to scrawl out "Hwy 12" instead of the street name than whatever the highway department named it. Plus, existing schemes of *not* reproducing the ref in the name already solves the problem. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On 8/1/2020 12:51 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Similarly, if you ask someone the name of the road in California with ref="CA 96", they will tell you "Highway 96" or perhaps "The river road". They won't say "Nah, it doesn't have a name, just a State highway number." So in that situation, how would you choose what value to use for `addr:street` on residences and POIs? J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On 7/31/20 14:29, Paul Johnson wrote: > Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, > ref=NY 214, noname=yes would be the right way. How about the stretch of FM 1960 from I-45 or so going east into Humble? Addresses on it are " FM 1960 East", though I think it used to be signed as "Humble-Huffman Road" even though nobody puts that in the addresses anymore. I currently have name=FM 1960 East alongside ref=FM 1960 (and maybe an alt_name=* too). (For those outside of Texas, FM or RM is like a lower class of state highway called Farm-/Ranch-To-Market Roads.) I'm on the side that name=* should match what's in addr:street=*, even if there's some duplicity, but maybe there should be some other tag to say perhaps the name shouldn't be rendered on (most) visual maps and/or read out separately from the ref in navigation software. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
Re: “There's no textual version of the name anywhere (except as used for the addresses of residences and POIs." That's the standard situation where I mapped in eastern Indonesia. The highways almost never had street signs and official maps are absent So I would use whatever names were used commonly on shops, And the names that local people used to describe streets or give directions. This is verifiable information: if you go to Wamena, Indonesia (and get an interpreter...), you can find the street names on shops and by asking people right there on the street. Similarly, if you ask someone the name of the road in California with ref="CA 96", they will tell you "Highway 96" or perhaps "The river road". They won't say "Nah, it doesn't have a name, just a State highway number." – Joseph Eisenberg On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:08 PM Jmapb wrote: > On 7/31/2020 4:24 PM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > > Put one of the variants into addr:street and then all the variants > > as alternative names onto the road. Obviously that stretch of road > > is referred to under all these names, so this is what we should map. > > Putting aside the question of *which* variant to put into `addr:street`, > this sounds like an approach that could work. But we might end up with > something like `alt_name=Highway 214;Route 214;State Highway 214;New > York 214;NY-214;New York State Route 214` (or the name_1 ... name_n > equivalents). I could live with that if it actually helped the geocoding > but it's not exactly graceful. > > Ultimately, though, these are alternate names for the route, not for the > stretch of road. (Which might have its own list of names! For instance, > a particular stretch of Ulster County Route 40 is known as Main Street, > Plank Road, Old Plank Road, Old Route 28, and Mount Tremper-Phoenicia > Road.) > > > It really doesn't matter that the road has officially no name. The > > goal is to map what's on the ground. > > For the road itself, what's on the ground is simply the highway shield > with the number 214. There's no textual version of the name anywhere > (except as used for the addresses of residences and POIs.) Best practice > for these sorts of roads, I'm told, is to omit `name=*`, tag `ref=*`, > and add to a route relation. > > For the addresses along the road, the vast majority are signed with just > a housenumber, and those POI signs that do include a street name are > inconsistent. Government data sources are also inconsistent. > > But an on-the-ground mapper can observe that those housenumbers belong > to this road, which here is known only by its route number. I feel there > should be a way to encode that observation without asking the mapper to > choose a particular textual representation of the route's name... > especially since it's hard to do that in a consistent manner. > > (Whatever the solution, my aim here is to get an address search that > works!) > > Jason > > > ___ > 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] addr:street for routes
> On Jul 31, 2020, at 12:45 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > So keep State Highway 214 in addr:street=* values, but that doesn't stop > noname=yes and ref=NY 214 being the correct values for the way itself. > Which will, as I have found by experience, result in OSM QA tools flagging you as the last editor of a bunch of addresses with no matching street. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:53 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 2020, at 12:45 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > So keep State Highway 214 in addr:street=* values, but that doesn't stop > noname=yes and ref=NY 214 being the correct values for the way itself. > > > > Which will, as I have found by experience, result in OSM QA tools flagging > you as the last editor of a bunch of addresses with no matching street. Sounds like a problem with the QA tool. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On 7/31/2020 4:24 PM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: Put one of the variants into addr:street and then all the variants as alternative names onto the road. Obviously that stretch of road is referred to under all these names, so this is what we should map. Putting aside the question of *which* variant to put into `addr:street`, this sounds like an approach that could work. But we might end up with something like `alt_name=Highway 214;Route 214;State Highway 214;New York 214;NY-214;New York State Route 214` (or the name_1 ... name_n equivalents). I could live with that if it actually helped the geocoding but it's not exactly graceful. Ultimately, though, these are alternate names for the route, not for the stretch of road. (Which might have its own list of names! For instance, a particular stretch of Ulster County Route 40 is known as Main Street, Plank Road, Old Plank Road, Old Route 28, and Mount Tremper-Phoenicia Road.) It really doesn't matter that the road has officially no name. The goal is to map what's on the ground. For the road itself, what's on the ground is simply the highway shield with the number 214. There's no textual version of the name anywhere (except as used for the addresses of residences and POIs.) Best practice for these sorts of roads, I'm told, is to omit `name=*`, tag `ref=*`, and add to a route relation. For the addresses along the road, the vast majority are signed with just a housenumber, and those POI signs that do include a street name are inconsistent. Government data sources are also inconsistent. But an on-the-ground mapper can observe that those housenumbers belong to this road, which here is known only by its route number. I feel there should be a way to encode that observation without asking the mapper to choose a particular textual representation of the route's name... especially since it's hard to do that in a consistent manner. (Whatever the solution, my aim here is to get an address search that works!) Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 4:28 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> The reductio-ad-absurdum would be to argue that 42nd Street in Manhattan >> should be `noname=yes ref=???` and participate in a route relation with >> `network=US:NY:New York:Street ref=42`. I'm sure that would please strict >> taxonomists, but most people would think it silly to argue that the name of >> the road at the downtown end of Times Square isn't 'Forty-Second Street'. >> If 42nd Street can be a name, why can't County Route 23C? >> > > If you're trying to argue that "Sixth Street" is not a name, I'm not > buying. Especially when you call out that it's absurd to suggest it is. > Or that you don't understand the difference between a name and a ref. Or > that you don't understand why data consumers may find conflating the two to > be confusing or annoyingly redundant. Surely you give our intelligence > more credit than that, don't you? > Quite the contrary. I'm not arguing that 'Sixth Street' is not a name. I'm arguing that 'County Route 23' may be a name, particularly when the given road has no other and the name is marked on blade signs, direction signs, or other cases where a name rather than a ref would be expected. I'm not suggesting that it's good practice to omit the ref. It is not. I'm not suggesting that it's good practice to include a ref as an alt-name on a street that is signed with an actual name. It is not. I'm suggesting that sometimes the ref _is_ the name. Out in the countryside, there's really very little difference between a road signed, '297th Avenue' https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263171081 and one signed 'North [County Road] 400 East' https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13723307 - they're both numeric references for county roads. County Route 39 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20082802 is really no different, except as to the form of the name. County Route 39 is what the locals call it. It's what the post office delivers to. It's what the blade signs say. (Unlike the nearby Mountain Avenue and Heart's Content Road, where the blade signs and addresses have the name.) The only real harm that I can see from the duplication is that there's a trivial additional amount of storage, and that voice synthesis might repeat itself, since a navigation system often reads off the name and the ref. It's otherwise not much of a conflation problem, since search operations that look for a name will find it, and ones that look for a ref will find it. Free-text search already often has to deduplicate results, for unavoidable reasons. (New York County, within New York City, within New York State, or New York Avenue, within Kings County, New York City, New York State.) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > The reductio-ad-absurdum would be to argue that 42nd Street in Manhattan > should be `noname=yes ref=???` and participate in a route relation with > `network=US:NY:New York:Street ref=42`. I'm sure that would please strict > taxonomists, but most people would think it silly to argue that the name of > the road at the downtown end of Times Square isn't 'Forty-Second Street'. > If 42nd Street can be a name, why can't County Route 23C? > > There are even parallels for 'the road has a name other than the ref, but > the ref remains the common name' in Manhattan. Sixth Avenue is also named > Avenue of the Americas. Nowadays, it carries signs for both, but I can > remember a time when the locals and the subway said 'Sixth Avenue' and the > street signs said 'Avenue of the Americas', confusing the tourists. These > are 'name' and 'alt_name', not 'name' and 'ref'; Sixth Avenue was there > first. (Also see Seventh Avenue/Fashion Avenue - only in the Garment > District; Fourth Avenue/Park Avenue South - the segment south of Union > Square > If you're trying to argue that "Sixth Street" is not a name, I'm not buying. Especially when you call out that it's absurd to suggest it is. Or that you don't understand the difference between a name and a ref. Or that you don't understand why data consumers may find conflating the two to be confusing or annoyingly redundant. Surely you give our intelligence more credit than that, don't you? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 03:44:13PM -0400, Jmapb wrote: > On 7/31/2020 1:00 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I'd go with the official address. It's not rare to find addresses in > > the US where what goes on an envelope doesn't match what the street is > > actually called. Nor is it rare to find the wiki to be wrong > > Sometimes the official address is unclear. Example, the firehouse at > housenumber 58. The fire department website says "58 NY-214", the county > records list the parcel address as "58 Route 214" with "Route 214 PO Box > 281" as the mailing address. The USPS website likes the address "58 > State Route 214" which is what I put for now. Put one of the variants into addr:street and then all the variants as alternative names onto the road. Obviously that stretch of road is referred to under all these names, so this is what we should map. It really doesn't matter that the road has officially no name. The goal is to map what's on the ground. As far as the wiki goes: it would be more precise to say that addr:street should have _one of the names_. old_name, local_name, name:es, ref, they all will do. Sarah ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb wrote: > > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed > in favor of ref=NY 214. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:01 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > around here we keep both, no need to remove the name if it makes sense. State Highway 214 looks like a reasonable name, especially outside of builtup areas. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:15 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I agree. > > Proof of this is that a section of road which was formerly US Highway 99, > but where the highway ref is now on a new bypass, will often by signed as > “Old Highway 99”, so it’s reasonable to say that the name=* was “Highway > 99” before. > OK, where were you guys the last time I brought this up? On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:31 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, ref=NY > 214, noname=yes would be the right way. > The last time I mentioned that using 'State Route 214' as a name appeared to be common practice around here if (and only if) the road had no other name. I got quite a chorus of replies, all of which agreed with you. Richard Fairhurst offered a bunch of UK examples with ref=A1234 noname=yes. I've certainly been deleting the ref from 'name_1' where it appears (TIGER put it there throughout) if the road does have another name. I've not been jumping to replace all the other ref-as-name with `noname=yes` (I might do it if I'm editing a way for another reason and happen to notice) because I have better things to do, and because it's the name that the locals use. It even appears on blade signs at some intersections, spelt out. The reductio-ad-absurdum would be to argue that 42nd Street in Manhattan should be `noname=yes ref=???` and participate in a route relation with `network=US:NY:New York:Street ref=42`. I'm sure that would please strict taxonomists, but most people would think it silly to argue that the name of the road at the downtown end of Times Square isn't 'Forty-Second Street'. If 42nd Street can be a name, why can't County Route 23C? There are even parallels for 'the road has a name other than the ref, but the ref remains the common name' in Manhattan. Sixth Avenue is also named Avenue of the Americas. Nowadays, it carries signs for both, but I can remember a time when the locals and the subway said 'Sixth Avenue' and the street signs said 'Avenue of the Americas', confusing the tourists. These are 'name' and 'alt_name', not 'name' and 'ref'; Sixth Avenue was there first. (Also see Seventh Avenue/Fashion Avenue - only in the Garment District; Fourth Avenue/Park Avenue South - the segment south of Union Square) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
So keep State Highway 214 in addr:street=* values, but that doesn't stop noname=yes and ref=NY 214 being the correct values for the way itself. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 31. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, > ref=NY 214, noname=yes would be the right way. > > > the authority for names are the local people. I would bet that some of > them would refer to this particular road as State Highway 214 if they > should name it in a formal way. NY 214 is a ref, no doubt, and is fine to > have, but so is State Highway > > > Cheers Martin > ___ > 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] addr:street for routes
On 7/31/2020 1:00 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: I'd go with the official address. It's not rare to find addresses in the US where what goes on an envelope doesn't match what the street is actually called. Nor is it rare to find the wiki to be wrong Sometimes the official address is unclear. Example, the firehouse at housenumber 58. The fire department website says "58 NY-214", the county records list the parcel address as "58 Route 214" with "Route 214 PO Box 281" as the mailing address. The USPS website likes the address "58 State Route 214" which is what I put for now. (As far as the wiki goes, of course there are problems. My hope is to clarify this particular point and edit the wiki accordingly.) On 7/31/2020 2:02 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: .The `addr:street` should match what goes on the address label that a delivery driver will be reading. With that goal in mind, we could say that an address should conform to usps.com's formatting (preferably sans the all-caps and the zip+4.) In this case, a spot check shows that to be "State Route 214". But are we allowed, license-wise, to pull from usps.com? (In real life of course, delivery companies will get parcels labeled every which way, and will tend to parse them intelligently, knowing that highway route names in street addresses are inconsistent.) That issue is the reason that I formerly advocated having the way carry the tag `name="State Route 214`" if the street has no other name and postal addresses use the reference. I was convinced by many others here that the consensus is that the latter is poor practice, and that simply having the `addr:street` show a name that attaches to no way is correct. And as you've acquiesced to this, so have I. But unfortunately it doesn't seem to work for search. For the firehouse, Nominatum will return results (not perfect but close) for 58 NY 214 and 58 NY-214 but none of the other variations, including the currently tagged USPS-valid address of "58 State Route 214. I think that duplicating the ref `CR 23C` or `NY 214` literally in the `addr:name` is a less-than-optimal practice I don't love it either. It would be more appropriate in an `addr:route_ref` key, but I imagine it would be pretty confusing for most mappers to have to choose between that and `addr:street`. I strongly prefer having the name spelt out, and possibly including the authority: `New York State Route 214` or `Greene County Route 23C`. Note that the word 'Route' is appropriate for both of these; New York doesn't have roads formally named 'State Highway' or 'County Road' - both are 'Routes' in the official documentation. So this is yet another version of the street name I didn't mention! And I'd have no problem making this the standard, but I *would* like to be able to standardize... maybe not nationally, maybe not even state-wide, but at least per route. One reason for spelling out everything is that these fields often wind up in voice-synthesis software, and it's much easier to deal with spelt-out words than obscure abbreviations. To this day, when I go to Schoharie, OSMand will direct me onto 'Enn Wye Thirty Amperes toward Shah-ha-ree' because Android's voice synthesis lacks a pronunciation for 'Schoharie' and the context for 'NY 30A'. (I've also heard highway numbers read out as 'Enn Wye Nine Newtons', 'You Ess Nine Watts', 'See Are Twenty-Three Coulombs', and so on - apparently a letter following a string of digits is consistently interpreted as being the abbreviation of an SI unit.) Side note: We really ought to settle on name:pronunciation or some similar key, because otherwise there is No Flippin' Way that navigation software will ever realize that Schoharie is /skoʊˈheɪɹˌiː/, Valatie is /vəˈleɪ.ʃə/, or Cairo is /ˈkeɪɹ.oʊ/. You're an Upstater, so you know what I'm talking about! (For those who aren't, the voice of Salli on http://ipa-reader.xyz/?text=v%C9%99%CB%88le%C9%AA.%CA%83%C9%99 is pretty close to the local pronunciation, although her intonation isn't quite right on 'Schoharie'.) That's pretty funny with the newtons & coulombs... It could be alleviated with name:pronunciation, which isn't "approved" but is formally documented and in use in a few thousand places. If you think you've mastered the pronunciation of Schoharie, go ahead and tag it... OSMand and Android will probably catch up in about 15 years. On 7/31/2020 2:13 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: That sounds suspiciously like a solvable problem. (I mean, that the validation tools could be improved to handle this situation properly.) As I mentioned above, I'm concerned less about validation tools and more about search. Ideally they should be picking up the same sort of problems, though. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
sent from a phone > On 31. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, ref=NY > 214, noname=yes would be the right way. the authority for names are the local people. I would bet that some of them would refer to this particular road as State Highway 214 if they should name it in a formal way. NY 214 is a ref, no doubt, and is fine to have, but so is State Highway Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
Given that it's not customary or advisable to reproduce ref in the name field, kinda think that's not the worst policy for old_ref=* situations that have no name, as well by extension, but that's a bit more of a grey area still. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:14 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I agree. > > Proof of this is that a section of road which was formerly US Highway 99, > but where the highway ref is now on a new bypass, will often by signed as > “Old Highway 99”, so it’s reasonable to say that the name=* was “Highway > 99” before. > > -Joseph Eisenberg > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:01 PM Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >> > On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb wrote: >> > >> > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were >> > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed >> > in favor of ref=NY 214. >> >> >> around here we keep both, no need to remove the name if it makes sense. >> State Highway 214 looks like a reasonable name, especially outside of >> builtup areas. >> >> Cheers Martin >> ___ >> 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] addr:street for routes
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:00 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb wrote: > > > > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were > > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed > > in favor of ref=NY 214. > > > around here we keep both, no need to remove the name if it makes sense. > State Highway 214 looks like a reasonable name, especially outside of > builtup areas. > Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, ref=NY 214, noname=yes would be the right way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
I agree. Proof of this is that a section of road which was formerly US Highway 99, but where the highway ref is now on a new bypass, will often by signed as “Old Highway 99”, so it’s reasonable to say that the name=* was “Highway 99” before. -Joseph Eisenberg On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:01 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb wrote: > > > > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were > > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed > > in favor of ref=NY 214. > > > around here we keep both, no need to remove the name if it makes sense. > State Highway 214 looks like a reasonable name, especially outside of > builtup areas. > > Cheers Martin > ___ > 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] addr:street for routes
sent from a phone > On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb wrote: > > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed > in favor of ref=NY 214. around here we keep both, no need to remove the name if it makes sense. State Highway 214 looks like a reasonable name, especially outside of builtup areas. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On 31/07/2020 14.02, Kevin Kenny wrote: The `addr:street` should match what goes on the address label that a delivery driver will be reading. Ordinarily, that's the signed name of the street, if the street has a name. Rural New York has many streets that will have a `ref=* noname=yes` - because their highway number is their only name. In this case, I use the postal address spelt out, so a building or address point will have `addr:housenumber=1234 addr:street="'State Route 214"` or `addr=housenumber=1234 addr:street="County Route 23C"` That practice gives some validation engines heartburn - they warn that `addr:street` shows a name that does not belong to a nearby way. That sounds suspiciously like a solvable problem. (I mean, that the validation tools could be improved to handle this situation properly.) Granted, there may need to be some gymnastics to know that e.g. "State Route (\w+)" matches ref="[A-Z]+ \1", but even so... -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
.On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:25 PM Jmapb wrote: > Hi all, what's the best way to tag the addr:street of an address along a > highway route? > > Example, I'm mapping houses and POIs along NY 212: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/411064 > > Some segments of the route are tagged name=Main Street and the addresses > there use Main Street for their street name -- easy. > > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed > in favor of ref=NY 214. Written addresses found in government data and > POI signs/websites/business cards are various: Highway 214, Route 214, > State Highway 214, State Route 214, NY Route 214, New York 214, NY-214, > etc. Most buildings are signed with a housenumber only. > > Is it best to simply tag addr:street=NY 214, matching the ref tag of the > segment and the name tag of the route? This isn't consistent with the > wiki, which specifically says addr:street should match the *name* of a > nearby *way*. > The `addr:street` should match what goes on the address label that a delivery driver will be reading. Ordinarily, that's the signed name of the street, if the street has a name. Rural New York has many streets that will have a `ref=* noname=yes` - because their highway number is their only name. In this case, I use the postal address spelt out, so a building or address point will have `addr:housenumber=1234 addr:street="'State Route 214"` or `addr=housenumber=1234 addr:street="County Route 23C"` That practice gives some validation engines heartburn - they warn that `addr:street` shows a name that does not belong to a nearby way. That issue is the reason that I formerly advocated having the way carry the tag `name="State Route 214`" if the street has no other name and postal addresses use the reference. I was convinced by many others here that the consensus is that the latter is poor practice, and that simply having the `addr:street` show a name that attaches to no way is correct. I think that duplicating the ref `CR 23C` or `NY 214` literally in the `addr:name` is a less-than-optimal practice; I strongly prefer having the name spelt out, and possibly including the authority: `New York State Route 214` or `Greene County Route 23C`. Note that the word 'Route' is appropriate for both of these; New York doesn't have roads formally named 'State Highway' or 'County Road' - both are 'Routes' in the official documentation. One reason for spelling out everything is that these fields often wind up in voice-synthesis software, and it's much easier to deal with spelt-out words than obscure abbreviations. To this day, when I go to Schoharie, OSMand will direct me onto 'Enn Wye Thirty Amperes toward Shah-ha-ree' because Android's voice synthesis lacks a pronunciation for 'Schoharie' and the context for 'NY 30A'. (I've also heard highway numbers read out as 'Enn Wye Nine Newtons', 'You Ess Nine Watts', 'See Are Twenty-Three Coulombs', and so on - apparently a letter following a string of digits is consistently interpreted as being the abbreviation of an SI unit.) Side note: We really ought to settle on name:pronunciation or some similar key, because otherwise there is No Flippin' Way that navigation software will ever realize that Schoharie is /skoʊˈheɪɹˌiː/, Valatie is /vəˈleɪ.ʃə/, or Cairo is /ˈkeɪɹ.oʊ/. You're an Upstater, so you know what I'm talking about! (For those who aren't, the voice of Salli on http://ipa-reader.xyz/?text=v%C9%99%CB%88le%C9%AA.%CA%83%C9%99 is pretty close to the local pronunciation, although her intonation isn't quite right on 'Schoharie'.) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:24 AM Jmapb wrote: > Is it best to simply tag addr:street=NY 214, matching the ref tag of the > segment and the name tag of the route? This isn't consistent with the > wiki, which specifically says addr:street should match the *name* of a > nearby *way*. I'd go with the official address. It's not rare to find addresses in the US where what goes on an envelope doesn't match what the street is actually called. Nor is it rare to find the wiki to be wrong, such as is the case with lanes, where excluding lanes for motorcyclists and bicyclists is in the wiki but fails on the ground verifiability. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] addr:street for routes
Hi all, what's the best way to tag the addr:street of an address along a highway route? Example, I'm mapping houses and POIs along NY 212: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/411064 Some segments of the route are tagged name=Main Street and the addresses there use Main Street for their street name -- easy. But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed in favor of ref=NY 214. Written addresses found in government data and POI signs/websites/business cards are various: Highway 214, Route 214, State Highway 214, State Route 214, NY Route 214, New York 214, NY-214, etc. Most buildings are signed with a housenumber only. Is it best to simply tag addr:street=NY 214, matching the ref tag of the segment and the name tag of the route? This isn't consistent with the wiki, which specifically says addr:street should match the *name* of a nearby *way*. Thanks, Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
