On 17.01.2015 23:47, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > But imagine for a minute that you are back in > the 1990s (without GPS) in a third-world country and you only have a paper > map. If you are given a restaurant to visit with an address such as #45 > Ayala Avenue, you would, in the worst case, go down the whole length of > Ayala Avenue looking for the correct house number. But if instead you were > given Ayala Avenue corner Makati Avenue, then you can go straight to the > intersection and just look around for the restaurant.
One difference between Europe and the Philippines may be that housenumbers in Europe were invented for administration, not for retrieval or navigation. I should add that cities were smaller at that time (18th century). There was no need to search for a restaurant. You either knew it, or you didn't need it. > I prefer addr:corner_street instead of addr:street_corner. After all, the > data to be recorded under the key is the name for a street, not a corner. > addr:corner is not quite easy to understand without the proper context. addr:corner_street is not easy to understand without the context either. > addr:street1=* would potentially be confused with the addrN proposal. You may be right, because there's one pitfall: street+street2 need to be used in combination, while addr+addr2 are alternatives. > Would > you and others agree that addr:corner_street is the best choice? If yes, > I'll bring this topic up on our mailing list. I don't have a clear preference. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
