At 2009-12-22 11:59, Roy Wallace wrote: >I think Karlsruhe is still the best approach - e.g. even if you have >4, 6, 12, 18, 50, an even interpolation way from 4 to 50 is the best >you can do short of mapping each address individually.
Except for this pesky line in the wiki page, which is what implies the presence of all housenumbers on an interpolation way: "For missing house numbers (e.g. missing "12") two ways need to be drawn (e.g. "1-11" and "13-25")." This is impractical anywhere I've been. It requires not only the creation of a new interpolation way each time a housenumber is skipped, but actually requires surveying each house to know what numbers are skipped. I can get each housenumber when surveying when they are nice enough to cluster mailboxes together, but it's time consuming (too much so in low light conditions), and I still miss some for privacy/safety reasons (people or traffic present). More often than not, I just get the houses at the end of each block. If the street signs are nicely configured (the way my example pic shows), even that is not necessary. >I don't see any need for mapping signs on the corner, *unless* you >don't know where to put the other end of the interpolation way. Yes - that's exactly why. I not only don't know where to put the other end, but don't know what its number is until I survey the next intersection over. Once this is done, the pseudo-nodes could be replaced by whatever scheme is used to represent the range of addresses between them. -- Alan Mintz <alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net> _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
