2014-08-24 11:05 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann <b...@volki.at>: > On 20.08.2014 10:18, Holger Jeromin wrote: >> Andreas Labres wrote on 20.08.2014 04:10: >>> On 19.08.14 23:17, fly wrote: >>>> but 265-267 is wrong >> >> Read as "tagging 265-267 alone is wrong". >> >>> Disagree. addr:housenumber is the official number given to that building. >>> And if >>> it's "265-267", then addr:housenumber=265-267 is the only correct >>> implementation >>> of this. >> >> But osm db needs a hint that 266 is missing. That is obvious on the >> street (by looking at the right and left building) but not in the data. > > The OSM db does not need to know about (the meaning of) housenumbers. Its > sole purpose is to store data. In this case, the housenumber is "265-267", > literally! This is not a shortcut for "265;266;267".
Agree strongly - I think it is a mistake to say "osm db needs a hint that 266 is missing" when considering an address which is officially labelled as "265-267". If addresses truly are compounds like that (and not number-ranges) then we can't really make standard inferences about which numbers are "present" and which are "missing". > Applications should not attempt to resolve housenumbers that way. ...unless they have been explicitly marked with "addr:interpolation", which tells us explicitly that they should be resolved :) - discussed in a separate thread recently. Dan _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging