On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Alan Mintz <alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net> wrote: > At 2009-12-21 11:01, Roy Wallace wrote: >>... If you don't know where the other end of the >>street is, you can't use an addr:interpolation way, so it seems to me >>that you are just tagging a sign. >> >>Is there already a tagging scheme for this? If not, propose one - but >>(as others have said) don't use existing tags in a way they are not >>intended for. (btw, please don't follow up with "but I want it >>rendered..." :P) > > I've been "tagging the sign" from survey photos, with address nodes to > which I add the tag pseudo=yes. When you get info for adjoining > intersections, they could be used to construct a true picture of the range > of possible addresses.
Shouldn't that be psuedo_position=yes, or some thing describing that you don't know the accuracy of the node you have entered? Because you seem tag just one "housenumber" and I do intervals, so it's possible to accept your numbers since they are just low resolutions. Here is one of your nodes: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/587389651 > This area shows the results of a survey of both pseudo-addresses (from > street signs) and actual ones (from mailboxes): http://osm.org/go/TaBihQXG4- > > (Yes, I need to discuss/document this. I suppose this is the "discuss" part > :) ) I'm inclined to mark the position as inaccurate and some tag to be able to put an interval there as well.. The current scheme with drawing a way to interpolate is too much work and cumbersome, for me anyways. And for Roy Wallace: I'm not too keen on way interpolation, that's one of the issues. -- /emj _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
