On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 18:05, Volker Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't see misplacing nodes as being a good alternative to getting the >> routeing right. >> > > At least in the context of the legal requirements in Italy, I am not > suggesting to misplace a node. I suggest to put it where the house number > has to be (in Italy), i.e. on the entrance from the public road. > I think that interpretation conflates two separate issues: the address of a building and the placement of the house number. We do not conflate road junctions with nodes marking the signs for road junctions (which some people do not map anyway). It is the building that has an address, not the sign. The sign is an indication of the address. The fact that Italy demands a specific placement of the sign doesn't really matter because if you know where the building is and have roads (and possibly drives/footpaths) mapped then you can figure out where the sign is going to be (but for multiple properties behind a single gate the reverse is not true). > > Regarding adding the (private) footpath or driveway from the gate to the > house, I did not expect a routing algorithm to be so intelligent that when > routing by car it also takes into consideration additional bits at the end > that are private and/or pedestrian. But I am not a routing expert, may the > AI has done wonders there as well. > Google certainly manages it, and can give you a route which involves buses and walking. In any case, in urban areas (at least in the UK) residential streets usually have names: if a house address is 7 Foo Street then it's almost certain that it is reached by going to Foo Street, even if the placement of the house on the lot puts it nearer to Bar Street. I would definitely expect a routeing algorithm to take account of street names, where present, even if it ignores driveways/footpaths (but why would it, since they're still ways?). Yes, there are some weird exceptions near me. Rare exceptions. The UK seems to conserve postal addresses even if road widening and re-routeing means those addresses are misleading. But why do we need to have the full street address on the building at all? > To identify it. In the UK, house number or name, plus postcode is sufficient to uniquely identify it. People, however, still find other information useful. Such as the address being 7 Foo Street means it's probably accessible by Foo Street. The rest is more for completeness and acting as a reverse gazetteer; that's the building, what's the full address? It's useful, so I add street name and town even though house name/number and postcode is all that's strictly necessary. Oh, and it may also help disambiguate nominatim queries if somebody knows house number, street name and town but not the postcode. Nervertheless I admit that there will certainly be cases where we need some > way of tying together the point where the navigation device finds the > address and the buidling where the people live whom you have come to visit > to have a cup of tea. A site relation ? > I would say that mapping driveways/footpaths is adequate for both humans and routeing algorithms. In many cases we don't even need that much: named streets give all the information needed. Maybe, in exceptional cases, but as a default thing for every building in Italy it seems excessive (especially as some mappers are scared by relations). -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
