Hi Andrzej,
I feel a bit conflicted here. Having the choice of several tags does
make things easier when adding complicated addresses, but for less
experienced mappers it does also help if things are kept simple. For
example, if better guidance regarding UK address mapping was added to
the
Thank you for the discussion so far. I've been thinking about a solution for
tagging localities that would work for both mappers who want to tag locality
types and those who don't. Current proposals (addr:town|village and
addr:locality|sublocality) are two distinct and incompatible tagging
of the area.
Regards
RAC_UK
From: Andrzej [mailto:nd...@redhazel.co.uk]
Sent: 28 January 2019 15:06
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK
Is it possible to use addr:locality for both towns and villages
Companies House don't validate anything. That much is well known.
What Richard was saying was that if you use their web form to
submit then it autocompletes using PAF but most older entries
will have been submitted on paper with no such normalisation.
Tom
On 29/01/2019 00:00, Will Phillips
Hi Paul,
Once you get out into rural areas, it's sometimes the case that an
entire hamlet is covered by a one or two postcodes. There may be named
streets but according to RM/PAF these are ignored and such addresses
take the form: building name/number, locality, post town, postcode.
The more
Chris, what would you see as a good data model for a UK address in OSM?
Just house number/name, street, postcode? It has been mentioned a couple
of times in this thread that the "addr:" model was intended in the UK to
contain postal addresses, not any other sort of address. Are you
suggesting only
Sorry, I only have yet more questions.
Once you get out into rural areas, it's sometimes the case that an entire
hamlet is covered by a one or two postcodes. There may be named streets but
according to RM/PAF these are ignored and such addresses take the form:
building name/number, locality, post
On 28/01/2019 21:56, Colin Smale wrote:
On 2019-01-28 22:22, Chris Hill wrote:
Post town do not exist, and never have. They are a fiction invented
by Royal Mail for their own internal use which they persuaded the
public into using for the sole benefit of Royal Mail.
...and for the benefit
I'm not quite sure what you've done with the quoting but you've attributed me
as writing your reply, which evidently I didn't. :)
Will Phillips wrote:
> I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a
> guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be becoming
>
On 2019-01-28 22:22, Chris Hill wrote:
> Post town do not exist, and never have. They are a fiction invented by Royal
> Mail for their own internal use which they persuaded the public into using
> for the sole benefit of Royal Mail.
...and for the benefit of anyone posting a letter and
On 28/01/2019 18:50, Lester Caine wrote:
On 28/01/2019 18:24, Will Phillips wrote:
There are certainly occasions when the street name is needed. For
example, I recently surveyed a single postcode (DE72 2HP) containing
two houses with the same house name, but different street names.
On 28/01/2019 15:06, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a
guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be becoming
less important, but when most people are asked for their address, they
will give their address as defined by
On 28/01/2019 18:24, Will Phillips wrote:
On 28/01/2019 17:28, Lester Caine wrote:
The reality is that for the UK ALL we need is the Postcode to supply a
reference to the Royal Mail 'postal address' as that is purely a Royal
Mail invention anyway. I personally don't see the need to add
On 28/01/2019 17:28, Lester Caine wrote:
The reality is that for the UK ALL we need is the Postcode to supply a
reference to the Royal Mail 'postal address' as that is purely a Royal
Mail invention anyway. I personally don't see the need to add
'addr:street' everywhere but that is what people
On 2019-01-28 18:32, Andrzej wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> These are very good examples, I wasn't aware of such places. They would
> indeed best fit addr:locality. How about using addr:locality together with
> addr:town/suburb/village/hamlet then? Having multiple well defined tags is
> good - they
Hi Will,
These are very good examples, I wasn't aware of such places. They would indeed
best fit addr:locality. How about using addr:locality together with
addr:town/suburb/village/hamlet then? Having multiple well defined tags is good
- they add useful information. We are not designing an
On 28/01/2019 15:31, Tom Hughes wrote:
The notion that I should tag addresses in Charlbury with
"addr:city=Chipping
Norton", a town 6 miles away, just because one private delivery
operator[1]
uses Chipping Norton as an optional part of their addressing is... one of
the more outlandish ideas
Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town
and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address
where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but
locality sounds almost offensive.
To me 'locality' just sounds neutral. I don't
On 28/01/2019 15:06, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
The notion that I should tag addresses in Charlbury with "addr:city=Chipping
Norton", a town 6 miles away, just because one private delivery operator[1]
uses Chipping Norton as an optional part of their addressing is... one of
the more outlandish
Is it possible to use addr:locality for both towns and villages? That could
simplify things quite a bit and I have yet to see an address that needs a post
town and two levels of localities below.
Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town and
addr:village. Can
Colin Smale wrote:
> As you will know RM have their own particular ideas of the
> geography of the UK, all done for their own convenience. It
> would certainly avoid some confusion if we used addr:posttown
> instead of addr:city.
Fully agree.
The notion that I should tag addresses in
Hi Will,
On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For this I have
> usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas and addr:locality
> elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to have just one recommended tag,
>
Hi,
I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For this I
have usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas and
addr:locality elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to have just
one recommended tag, perhaps addr:locality, because having addr:town
addr:village
Hi Colin,
Dependent and doubly dependent localities are technical terms and without
having access to PAF most mappers wouldn't know which one to use. And if they
did, that could be considered a copyright infringement. Also, it just doesn't
sound right. No one asks "which dependent locality do
Perhaps OSM UK could step in and endorse address tagging practices once a
consensus is reached? In the end it does not matter what tag names we use as
long as the whole scheme is consistent and rich enough to describe common use
cases.
So far, I see addr:city=posttown is a popular solution,
Hi Andrezej,
I would oppose addr:village for the Dependent Locality as it invites
incorrect usage. There is no reason to overload an existing tag with a
different meaning to its current usage. In the UK, a village is not
simply a neat subdivision of a town. I think addr:locality and
On 28 January 2019 06:17:04 GMT+08:00, David Woolley
wrote:
>On 27/01/2019 21:21, Colin Smale wrote:
>> Organisation Organisation Name 60 n/a
>> Department Name 60 n/a
>> Premises Sub Building Name 30
>
>addr:unit
What about
David, thanks for offering some updates.
By the way, I am not asking questions because I personally want the
answers - I am fully aware of how these things work. And because of
that, and because OSM tries to model reality, I believe we need some
kind of anchor-point for our thinking in order to
At low level (commercial areas, academic campuses, hospitals) that's not really
the case. They are not as formalised as admin areas.
Best wishes,
Andrzej
On 28 January 2019 05:46:23 GMT+08:00, Gareth L wrote:
>I’d hope these would inherit from whatever the address is enclosed in.
>
>On 27 Jan
Hi Colin,
This is broadly in line with Robert's proposals. However, it raises questions
about:
1. tagging "dependent localities" - they can be towns or villages. Are you
happy with addr:town, addr:village for this purpose? Reaching consensus on that
would be a major step forward.
2. Tagging
On 27/01/2019 21:21, Colin Smale wrote:
OrganisationOrganisation Name 60 n/a
Department Name 60 n/a
PremisesSub Building Name 30
addr:unit
Building Name 50 addr:housename
Building Number 4
I’d hope these would inherit from whatever the address is enclosed in.
On 27 Jan 2019, at 21:22, Colin Smale
mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:
Assuming the post code is seen in OSM as a way of addressing post (as opposed
to a geographic subdivision or an indication of location) then I
Assuming the post code is seen in OSM as a way of addressing post (as
opposed to a geographic subdivision or an indication of location) then I
suggest following Royal Mail's address structure, which can be seen in
the description of the Postcode Address File on Wikipedia [1]. If we
cannot map a
Hi,
When working on post codes in East Anglia I realised the current address
tagging scheme is insufficient for even fairly basic scenarios. I have already
discussed the issues with some of the most experienced mappers and like to
bring these issues to your attention. Robert has summarised his
34 matches
Mail list logo
