On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 12:47, Christoph Hormann <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I am wondering about the practical verifiability of such numbers. I > mean in OSM we do not map internal numbering systems of organizations > for their infrastructure if those are not manifested in the form of > signs visible to the outside observer. > They are verifiable by asking the organization in charge of the allotments, as I initially did when mapping some allotments. Or there may be a hand-drawn map in the window of a hut on the allotments, as I found when I later went up to survey the place. There are situations where signage is not a requirement for mapping. There are several named bridges in my area, where the names are shown on OS OpendData StreetView (which we are allowed to use and is avaiable as background imagery) but which do not have signs. I find your "internal numbering systems of organizations" argument a little weak. I cannot, in general, walk into a private company and wander around unaccompanied, so knowiung their numbering or rooms is not useful. I can wander around my local allotments. I can apply for an allotment and be told that plots 4 and 7 are available and, if they are shown on a map, I can wander around to inspect them without needing a guide. > If plot numbers are signed the question is why these are not considered > addresses. > How about because addr:housenumber makes little sense in the context of an allotment plot? How about because allotments do not have postcodes? How about because addresses are generally a means of figuring out where to deliver physical mail and allotments are not on postal delivery routes? Even addr:unit would be stretching the definition of unit past its breaking point. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
