Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
Postal code usually means Zip code, or its non-USA equivalent, not city. On June 25, 2014 7:20:55 AM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-06-25 12:37 GMT+02:00 Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us: Postal cities aren't currently tagged as areas, only tag values on individual POIs and buildings. there is the key postal_code to be used on areas (and streets), I am not sure if Nominatim evaluates it, but could be. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Apostal_code cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
Postal code usually means Zip code, or its non-USA equivalent, not city. On June 25, 2014 7:20:55 AM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-06-25 12:37 GMT+02:00 Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us: Postal cities aren't currently tagged as areas, only tag values on individual POIs and buildings. there is the key postal_code to be used on areas (and streets), I am not sure if Nominatim evaluates it, but could be. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Apostal_code cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On 6/26/14 3:20 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: Postal code usually means Zip code, or its non-USA equivalent, not city. this is one of those fussy points in US geocoding. the zip code can be mapped to the postal city, which is what is in everyone's addresses, and is what i think most us residents initially expect when typing an address into a search box. the underlying point being that there isn't one true geocoder, it depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish. something driven by postal codes/addresses can be correct for many applications, while being wrong for others. to my mind the fact that we keep going in circles about this is evidence that we're thinking about the problem the wrong way. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
ZIP code / government addressing data expert here :) * ZCTA = ZIP Code Tabulation Area. ZCTAs are established by the *US Census Bureau not the US Postal Service.* ZCTAs have been established to tabulate population statistics around an area people may identify as a city, because there isn't an incorporated legal city there (for instance). * ZIP Code = Zoning Improvement Plan Code. ZIP Codes are established by the US Post Office to *route mail*, *ZIP Codes do not have a direct spatial component, like a polygon boundary, per se.* Therefore you can't technically map US ZIP Codes with a polygon. Any maps you see where ZIP Codes are mapped, those boundaries are *derived *from addresses. Technically a USPS ZIP Code map would be a point cloud of address points. If you stand on a vacant parcel with no address it also technically does not have a ZIP Code until the USPS says it does. There are many oddities in ZIP Codes, like holes and enclaves. In the USA, ZIP Codes are established based on imaginary boundaries surrounding post office locations. They are set up to route mail efficiently. * End expertise, begin opinion * Since there are areas in the USA where there are no incorporated cities (that is, ones with a government / mayor), people often identify the place they live based on whatever the city field is on their mail. For OSM, I believe we should only be mapping postal codes by attributing them to addresses. CDP and ZCTA boundaries could arguably be included, as some kind of admin level. Elliott Baltimore Co. GIS. On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 6/26/14 3:20 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: Postal code usually means Zip code, or its non-USA equivalent, not city. this is one of those fussy points in US geocoding. the zip code can be mapped to the postal city, which is what is in everyone's addresses, and is what i think most us residents initially expect when typing an address into a search box. the underlying point being that there isn't one true geocoder, it depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish. something driven by postal codes/addresses can be correct for many applications, while being wrong for others. to my mind the fact that we keep going in circles about this is evidence that we're thinking about the problem the wrong way. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Elliott Plack http://about.me/elliottp ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
Yes, but one postal city commonly contains multiple postal codes, so storing the postal city in the postal code tag represents a loss of detail. On J,une 26, 2014 2:33:12 PM CDT, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 6/26/14 3:20 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: Postal code usually means Zip code, or its non-USA equivalent, not city. this is one of those fussy points in US geocoding. the zip code can be mapped to the postal city, which is what is in everyone's addresses, and is what i think most us residents initially expect when typing an address into a search box. the underlying point being that there isn't one true geocoder, it depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish. something driven by postal codes/addresses can be correct for many applications, while being wrong for others. to my mind the fact that we keep going in circles about this is evidence that we're thinking about the problem the wrong way. richard -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On 6/26/14 3:54 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: ZIP code / government addressing data expert here :) and i don't disagree with you here, but my thinking about how to go forward may be very different. more details will be forthcoming. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On 2014-06-24 05:52, Brian Quinion wrote: Hi, So from my point of view as a nominatim developer the issue is that there are (at least?) 2 types of city in the USA. There are administrative cities and there are postal cities. There are also census areas, which may or may not be their own category of thing. At the moment all of these are tagged in exactly the same way: boundary=administrative type=boundary plus an admin_level There is nothing that lets us tell them apart so we are left to pick the 'best' city. Postal cities aren't currently tagged as areas, only tag values on individual POIs and buildings. Clifford's first example is a building that lies outside the Redmond city limits but still carries a Redmond address, which is noted in addr:city. Would it be possible for Nominatim itself to synthesize a postal city boundary for its own use? I'm unfamiliar with Nominatim's inner workings, but it appears to models streets as polygons. How about something similar at the city level, taking into account the city limits and any matching addr:city values within a certain radius? There's at least some support on this list for making all CDPs boundary=census or somesuch instead of boundary=administrative. It's been used extensively in some areas. [1] The Standard stylesheet no longer renders automatic catch-all labels on large areas, but perhaps the openstreetmap-carto developers would entertain a style rule for boundary=census and/or place=locality areas. Adding individual 'city' tags to houses doesn't help much. Do you mean admin city or postal city? Same issue. In most cases we actually want to find and link to both. addr:city tags always indicate the postal city. boundary=administrative areas always indicate the city's administrative limits. Anything else should really use is_in:city. So - my suggestion would be to introduce tagging that makes the distinction. Ideally to create boundary=postal or something like that rather than tagging every road or house with duplicate information. A postal city in the U.S. is just one of possibly several names associated with a ZIP code, which is an area by first approximation but technically a route. [2] boundary=postal sounds a lot like the USPS's ZCTAs; otherwise, who knows the exact boundaries of their own ZIP code? I mean, are there Welcome to Boston Mass 02134 signs anywhere? Administrative boundaries are contentious enough on this list, but realistically, ZCTAs could only ever be added and edited by bots. Sounds like the perfect candidate for an external database. ;-) In adding a tag like addr:city, I'm making a statement about an individual POI's address carrying a certain city. That's often more verifiable (via signage, business cards, or takeout menus) than a statement that every address in a large polygon carries that address. How precise is that polygon? The standard way to avoid maintaining redundant data is through a relation, like associatedStreet relations, but I'm not keen on adding every building or street in town to a relation. [1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/boundary=census#map [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-December/002567.html -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On 6/25/14 6:37 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote: Postal cities aren't currently tagged as areas, only tag values on individual POIs and buildings. Clifford's first example is a building that lies outside the Redmond city limits but still carries a Redmond address, which is noted in addr:city. Would it be possible for Nominatim itself to synthesize a postal city boundary for its own use? I'm unfamiliar with Nominatim's inner workings, but it appears to models streets as polygons. How about something similar at the city level, taking into account the city limits and any matching addr:city values within a certain radius? i'm currently working on setting up an external source for city boundaries derived from ZCTA data. these boundaries would not be intended for import to OSM, but rather would be an external data set available to geocoders such as Nominatim. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
2014-06-25 12:37 GMT+02:00 Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us: Postal cities aren't currently tagged as areas, only tag values on individual POIs and buildings. there is the key postal_code to be used on areas (and streets), I am not sure if Nominatim evaluates it, but could be. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Apostal_code cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On 2014-06-25 05:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: there is the key postal_code to be used on areas (and streets), I am not sure if Nominatim evaluates it, but could be. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Apostal_code postal_code or addr:postcode are for a ZIP code itself, while addr:city is for the name of the city or P.O. station the ZIP code is associated with. The typical usage would be: addr:city=Boston addr:state=MA addr:postcode=02134. Still, any attempt to draw a bubble around a ZIP code is going to raise the same questions: How precise is the bubble? Is one edge exact and the other hand-wavy? How would one tag the degree of uncertainty in a machine-readable way (that is, other than FIXME)? -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
Hi, So from my point of view as a nominatim developer the issue is that there are (at least?) 2 types of city in the USA. There are administrative cities and there are postal cities. There are also census areas, which may or may not be their own category of thing. At the moment all of these are tagged in exactly the same way: boundary=administrative type=boundary plus an admin_level There is nothing that lets us tell them apart so we are left to pick the 'best' city. Adding individual 'city' tags to houses doesn't help much. Do you mean admin city or postal city? Same issue. In most cases we actually want to find and link to both. So - my suggestion would be to introduce tagging that makes the distinction. Ideally to create boundary=postal or something like that rather than tagging every road or house with duplicate information. Thoughts? -- Brian On 24 June 2014 01:24, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: I reported this as a bug in trac. See https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5190 Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
CDPs make for nice cartographic labeling in areas where there are no other official towns. e.g. http://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/villeda.map-atyd5cky.html#11/39.3356/-76.5905 On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us wrote: On 2014-06-11 09:09, Clifford Snow wrote: I can not search for an address in part of unincorporated King County, WA when using the postal city. Fails - 7732 234th Place Northeast, Redmond, WA The search works when omitting the postal city. The search returns the CDP, Union Hill-Novelty Hill at the correct location. Passes - 7732 234th Place Northeast, WA The building is tagged as follows: addr:city=Redmond addr:housenumber=7732 addr:street=234th Place Northeast addr:postcode=98053 name=7732 Is this a problem with nominatim or the CDP boundary? I'm resigned to the idea that Nominatim only gives reverse absolute paths, not addresses. I've mapped many residential and retail developments with named landuses, so Nominatim now gives results like: 3, Highridge Circle, Stoneybrook, Loveland, Hamilton, Ohio, 45140, United States http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=42703202 (where Stoneybrook is a named landuse=residential) The tagging is correct, but Nominatim is a tad too aggressive in this case. Its behavior probably makes sense for rural, poorly mapped areas, but not for built-up, well-mapped ones. -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Elliott Plack http://about.me/elliottp ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On 2014-06-23 06:20, Elliott Plack wrote: CDPs make for nice cartographic labeling in areas where there are no other official towns. e.g. http://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/villeda.map-atyd5cky.html#11/39.3356/-76.5905 That's often true, but it's strange for Nominatim to include these names in what might otherwise appear to be addresses. CDPs and landuse areas would make more sense if Nominatim used more prepositions: 123 Caribou Crossing near Tigertown in Real Township, -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: I can not search for an address in part of unincorporated King County, WA when using the postal city. Fails - 7732 234th Place Northeast, Redmond, WA The search works when omitting the postal city. The search returns the CDP, Union Hill-Novelty Hill at the correct location. Passes - 7732 234th Place Northeast, WA The building is tagged as follows: addr:city=Redmond addr:housenumber=7732 addr:street=234th Place Northeast addr:postcode=98053 name=7732 Is this a problem with nominatim or the CDP boundary? I have nothing to add to the CDP discussion but that is not your problem here. I looked at this after my own address import. This is definitely a Nominatim issue. What happens is that Nominatim associates address points with roads. In order to reduce duplication, some information is associated with roads instead of on the individual address points themselves. This includes addr:city which is assigned to roads based on containment within an administrative boundary, not based on any addr:city tags on address nodes. You could fix this by adding an addr:city tag to the road that these addresses belong to. This overrides any admin boundary containment. However this seems like a case of tagging for the geocoder and I think Nominatim needs to be changed to make this problem better. Like, if all addresses being associated with a given road have the same addr:city tag on them then it should carry that over to the road and override anything Nominatim comes up with on its own. As an example I did add an addr:city tag to one road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13226787 Notice that if you search for an address along Cottonwood Circle with Manhattan in the search (ex: 3700 Cottonwood Circle, Manhattan, KS) it finds it. But if you search for an address on the neighboring road (ex: 6001 Stony Brook Drive, Manhattan, KS) it finds nothing until you remove the Manhattan at which point it finds the address but reports it to be simply in Riley County. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: I have nothing to add to the CDP discussion but that is not your problem here. I looked at this after my own address import. This is definitely a Nominatim issue. What happens is that Nominatim associates address points with roads. In order to reduce duplication, some information is associated with roads instead of on the individual address points themselves. This includes addr:city which is assigned to roads based on containment within an administrative boundary, not based on any addr:city tags on address nodes. You could fix this by adding an addr:city tag to the road that these addresses belong to. This overrides any admin boundary containment. However this seems like a case of tagging for the geocoder and I think Nominatim needs to be changed to make this problem better. Like, if all addresses being associated with a given road have the same addr:city tag on them then it should carry that over to the road and override anything Nominatim comes up with on its own. As an example I did add an addr:city tag to one road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13226787 Notice that if you search for an address along Cottonwood Circle with Manhattan in the search (ex: 3700 Cottonwood Circle, Manhattan, KS) it finds it. But if you search for an address on the neighboring road (ex: 6001 Stony Brook Drive, Manhattan, KS) it finds nothing until you remove the Manhattan at which point it finds the address but reports it to be simply in Riley County. I'll report a bug to Nominatim since I started this. Putting addr:city on a highway doesn't seem right. Especially if the road isn't in the city boundary although less tagging than adding a city tag to each address node. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
I reported this as a bug in trac. See https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5190 Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On 2014-06-11 09:09, Clifford Snow wrote: I can not search for an address in part of unincorporated King County, WA when using the postal city. Fails - 7732 234th Place Northeast, Redmond, WA The search works when omitting the postal city. The search returns the CDP, Union Hill-Novelty Hill at the correct location. Passes - 7732 234th Place Northeast, WA The building is tagged as follows: addr:city=Redmond addr:housenumber=7732 addr:street=234th Place Northeast addr:postcode=98053 name=7732 Is this a problem with nominatim or the CDP boundary? I'm resigned to the idea that Nominatim only gives reverse absolute paths, not addresses. I've mapped many residential and retail developments with named landuses, so Nominatim now gives results like: 3, Highridge Circle, Stoneybrook, Loveland, Hamilton, Ohio, 45140, United States http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=42703202 (where Stoneybrook is a named landuse=residential) The tagging is correct, but Nominatim is a tad too aggressive in this case. Its behavior probably makes sense for rural, poorly mapped areas, but not for built-up, well-mapped ones. -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
I can not search for an address in part of unincorporated King County, WA when using the postal city. Fails - 7732 234th Place Northeast, Redmond, WA The search works when omitting the postal city. The search returns the CDP, Union Hill-Novelty Hill at the correct location. Passes - 7732 234th Place Northeast, WA The building is tagged as follows: addr:city=Redmond addr:housenumber=7732 addr:street=234th Place Northeast addr:postcode=98053 name=7732 Is this a problem with nominatim or the CDP boundary? Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
CDPs were (incorrectly, probably) imported several years ago, leading to your problem. I don't know for sure, but Nominatim probably only pays attention to geographic containment when it comes to hierarchy information like the city. It probably should also index the addr:city tag too. On Jun 11, 2014 6:12 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: I can not search for an address in part of unincorporated King County, WA when using the postal city. Fails - 7732 234th Place Northeast, Redmond, WA The search works when omitting the postal city. The search returns the CDP, Union Hill-Novelty Hill at the correct location. Passes - 7732 234th Place Northeast, WA The building is tagged as follows: addr:city=Redmond addr:housenumber=7732 addr:street=234th Place Northeast addr:postcode=98053 name=7732 Is this a problem with nominatim or the CDP boundary? Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
CDPs in OSM have been an ongoing issue of discussion for a while. NE2 stated that he would delete them all unless someone could show him a single example of them being useful. I pointed out that Bethesda, MD (noted for being where the NIH and the Naval Medical Academy, along with several other large landmarks) is a CDP, as is Silver Spring, MD, which is the 2nd most dense place in MD except for Baltimore. After some discussion, he agreed not to delete the objects in the whole US. The general feeling from many people were that the CDPs were useless information- only interesting to the census workers and not the regular people on the street. For them, it probably made sense to delete the CDPs. For places where CDPs do make sense to keep in, it would be sad if someone deleted them, but that's likely what happened. This is (yet another) reason why I believe so strongly in Ian's effort to move government boundary data out of OSM and into another dataset. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
however folks may feel about CDPs, they aren't administrative government entities and the current tagging of them with an admin_level is clearly wrong (which Paul Norman pointed out to me a little while ago and he's absolutely right). if we can't get them out of the database then we should at least make an effort to come up with better tagging. On 6/11/14 2:09 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: This is (yet another) reason why I believe so strongly in Ian's effort to move government boundary data out of OSM and into another dataset. i favor this as well. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: however folks may feel about CDPs, they aren't administrative government entities and the current tagging of them with an admin_level is clearly wrong (which Paul Norman pointed out to me a little while ago and he's absolutely right). if we can't get them out of the database then we should at least make an effort to come up with better tagging. After reading the message thread, I agree that CDP's do not belong in OSM. I do think they describe some small rural areas but they are not administrative boundaries in the in the state, county, city, neighborhood sense. I think that Ian is correct that Nominatim is failing to find the address because of the CDP boundary. But does that make Nominatim wrong or the admin boundary? I can fix the admin boundary for this area, but that leaves hundreds of others untouched. Anyone want to help me understand how to remove the CDP for Union Hill-Novelty Hill CDP so I can test out if this fixes the address search? Serge, I like having administrative boundaries in OSM. For one it makes overpass area queries slick. I would prefer that boundaries be in a separate layer. Just recently I've been adding park and rides in NW Washington State. A number of the parking lots were connected to completely unrelated objects. The parking lots had grown since they were originally mapped. It made changing them a pain. That alone doesn't justify layers, but instead it makes OSM somewhat easier to maintain. How layers get implemented might involve separate tables or even databases, just so long as the contributor has the sense that if the admin boundary needs fixing, it is done from a separate layer. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
Clifford, I do not like your statement in favor of deleting Bethesda from OSM. - Serge On Jun 11, 2014 4:21 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: however folks may feel about CDPs, they aren't administrative government entities and the current tagging of them with an admin_level is clearly wrong (which Paul Norman pointed out to me a little while ago and he's absolutely right). if we can't get them out of the database then we should at least make an effort to come up with better tagging. After reading the message thread, I agree that CDP's do not belong in OSM. I do think they describe some small rural areas but they are not administrative boundaries in the in the state, county, city, neighborhood sense. I think that Ian is correct that Nominatim is failing to find the address because of the CDP boundary. But does that make Nominatim wrong or the admin boundary? I can fix the admin boundary for this area, but that leaves hundreds of others untouched. Anyone want to help me understand how to remove the CDP for Union Hill-Novelty Hill CDP so I can test out if this fixes the address search? Serge, I like having administrative boundaries in OSM. For one it makes overpass area queries slick. I would prefer that boundaries be in a separate layer. Just recently I've been adding park and rides in NW Washington State. A number of the parking lots were connected to completely unrelated objects. The parking lots had grown since they were originally mapped. It made changing them a pain. That alone doesn't justify layers, but instead it makes OSM somewhat easier to maintain. How layers get implemented might involve separate tables or even databases, just so long as the contributor has the sense that if the admin boundary needs fixing, it is done from a separate layer. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: I do not like your statement in favor of deleting Bethesda from OSM. OK -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
CDPs in OSM have been an ongoing issue of discussion for a while. Yup, I wrote here about CDPs getting tangled up with admin_boundary in OSM in 2012! CDPs have no effective or OSM sensible admin_level boundary value, I think that much we have established. NE2 stated that he would delete them all unless someone could show him a single example of them being useful. Cleaning up messes in OSM (whether by NE2 or not) is something I'm familiar with. Resulting semantics (behavior of how OSM consumers use data in it) can be quite complex: in some cases CDP data confuse, in some cases CDP data might be all that there is to get a fix on where is this? in a geocoding environment. Usually, going wider (to a county or a state level) might be more strictly accurate, but without the granularity desired. For example, you might be able to get correct an admin_level=6 but, 7, 8, 9 or 10, no. (CDPs might be thought of as somewhere around 7, 8 or 9 but that becomes nonsensical when you truly lean hard on it). There really are a variety of ways OSM's data can be queried and parsed to make sense of things, and CDPs can both muddy the water and occasionally provide something which MIGHT BE better than wider (but correct) something else. With the data as they are today, you just don't always know that in advance. I pointed out that Bethesda, MD (noted for being where the NIH and the Naval Medical Academy, along with several other large landmarks) is a CDP, as is Silver Spring, MD, which is the 2nd most dense place in MD except for Baltimore. After some discussion, he agreed not to delete the objects in the whole US. The general feeling from many people were that the CDPs were useless information- only interesting to the census workers and not the regular people on the street. For them, it probably made sense to delete the CDPs. For places where CDPs do make sense to keep in, it would be sad if someone deleted them, but that's likely what happened. See: there IS an odd dichotomy of cases where using CDPs make some sense and CDPs don't make sense. Usually, the latter, but on occasion, more than once, certainly, the former holds true. This is (yet another) reason why I believe so strongly in Ian's effort to move government boundary data out of OSM and into another dataset. As tools to move brief (often, relatively brief) snippets of now-in-OSM data get better, easier to use (for intermediate and even novice mappers) and better community consensus hones in on which datasets do and don't belong in OSM, I think we shall see more and more migrations of the sort that Serge refers to. There is a bare bones of data which truly do belong in OSM. There are also data which do not belong in OSM. Harmony about which and where can be difficult, as we have seen, but these efforts can and do move us forward. Serge sees a future (of more and more not-in-the-OSM-database data), and it is here now. What are good ways to keep this happening? Good communication and deeper and wider understandings about how we use our data. And thanks to those who work on OSM data software tools (editors, style sheet manipulators...), promulgate them and document how to use them. Keep up the good work, everybody! SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 01:19:10 PM Clifford Snow wrote: I think that Ian is correct that Nominatim is failing to find the address because of the CDP boundary. But does that make Nominatim wrong or the admin boundary? My expectation is that Nominatim would use the CDP (or the city region it's located in) if there is no addr:city, and either 1. would allow either the CDP and addr:city when addr:city is present, or 2. use only the addr:city if it is present. The first option would account for the case where the addr:city is incorrect (for whatever reason), but someone searching for the address could either use addr:city or the CDP name. -- Saikrishna Arcot signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Nominatim in CDP
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Saikrishna Arcot saiarcot...@gmail.com wrote: My expectation is that Nominatim would use the CDP (or the city region it's located in) if there is no addr:city, and either 1. would allow either the CDP and addr:city when addr:city is present, or 2. use only the addr:city if it is present. The first option would account for the case where the addr:city is incorrect (for whatever reason), but someone searching for the address could either use addr:city or the CDP name. The CDP boundary seems to override the addr:city. The addr:city tag is just the mailing address tag since the node is outside of the city limits. From reading the documentation of Nominatim, I thought that the addr tags would be the first choice. That's why I wonder if the problem is Nominatim. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
