On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Alan Mintz <alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net<alan_mintz%2b...@earthlink.net> > wrote:
> 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. I feel your pain. But if you're going to use addr tags anyway, shouldn't your pseudo=yes be addr:pseudo=yes? Or maybe even addr:inclusion=pseudo? I'd prefer this be in the addr: namespace, this way at least there's a hint to any renderers/geocoders that there's something about this addr tag that the renderer/geocoder doesn't understand. Looking at your sample node ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/587389651), it seems to be at least approximately in line with Karlsruhe backward-compatibility-wise.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
