Addresses are funny beasts. They may mean something different for the delivery guy, the mailman, the administration, the owner of the building, the cab driver who needs to let out a passenger.
Maybe we should also indicate whether we mapped the ground parcel, the building, the doorbell, the mailbox, the service road/footway leading to the house... If you want to have both addresses and POIs only once, your only option is to use relations to tie them together unambiguously. In The Netherlands I found places where the address of the ground floor appartment differs from the appartment built on top of it. Do we have a good way to map those? The 'front' doors were in the back and one had to climb stairs to get to them. I don't really have an opinion. All I know is that in The Netherlands they now mapped multiple house numbers on dedicated nodes , which they placed withing the building contour in some diagonal fashion, and sometimes there are more than 10 for the same building. No idea if more than 100 also occurs. These are actual housenumbers not flat numbers. In Brussels we simply put 2 nodes inside the corner buildings. Buildings with 2 addresses are quite common there too. Both the addresses in Brussels and The Netherlands were imported from sources with a suitable license. Jo 2015-01-18 22:23 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm <markus.lindh...@gmail.com>: > On 18 January 2015 at 22:11, Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2015-01-18 20:52 GMT+00:00 Markus Lindholm <markus.lindh...@gmail.com>: > >> On 17 January 2015 at 22:16, Friedrich Volkmann <b...@volki.at> wrote: > >>> With the addrN schema, we need one object (a node tagged shop=* and > >>> addrN:*=*) for a shop. > >>> With the provides_feature relation we need one node for the shop, one > node > >>> for each address, and one relation. > >> > >> And if there are two shops that both have the same address? Then your > >> scheme breaks down as you would end up with a database with two > >> distinct nodes but same address. Clearly a bad thing and against the > >> principle of 'One feature - one element' > >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element > > > > This criticism is mistaken. (The wiki page even gives a counterexample > > of "More than one of something on the same site" which is rather > > similar to "two shops with the same address".) We have lots of > > examples in OSM of two distinct objects with the same address - it's > > quite common in real life, and if it is a problem then it's nothing to > > do with "addrN", it would be a problem with a large portion of our > > "addr" data! > > I think that comes down to how addresses are viewed, either as a > proper feature in their one right or as an attribute to some other > feature. I think addresses are proper features, so a distinct address > should be found only once in the database. > > /Markus > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
