> Data consumers see these hyphenated house numbers as one address, as well.
Is that a problem? An address range can be considered a single address. > Create an address node for each housenumber and place each node somewhere on the building outline (or inside the building) I don't think that's a good idea, we should try to accurately map what's on the ground, when the street address is signposted as a range like "1-3" we should capture that as a single address "1-3" and not multiple addresses unless it's signed that way on the ground. > If house numbers are associated with individual entrances, tag those numbers to entrance=* nodes. Doesn't work when the whole site and single main entrance have the address range. > Separate the numbers by commas (e.g., 11,13,15) or semicolon (e.g., 11;13;15). Again I feel that's skewing what's actually represented on the ground, which is a single address which is a range and not multiple addresses. > Specify the range (e.g. 10-95). Note that there is a risk of ambiguity between two meanings: > When such a range is officially used for the entire house, this is the preferred method. In this case 10-95 is simply a label like any other. In this and other cases, house numbers officially contain a dash and are not meant to be treated as special. > When such a range is meant to be interpreted as a list of addresses, use addr:interpolation=* (described below) to emphasise this. Some mappers will add a short "virtual" way which allows them to put addresses 10 and 95 on separate nodes as normal. Some mappers will specify the range 10-95 on a single object, where the addition of the addr:interpolation=* tag disambiguates it from the "simply a label" meaning, specifying that it is indeed to be treated as a range. Both approaches are used in practice and there is little consensus. > Note that in some cases building or building complex has single address such as 3-5 that only looks like a housenumber range. As usual, do not convert such data blindly, without a verification. I think this is the best option, since it depends exactly what's happening on the ground. I think the only reasonable alternative is to have something like addr:housenumber:start=1 + addr:housenumber:end=3. Which is clearer that this is a range and allows data consumers to understand it better. On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 at 13:34, Paul White <pjwhite1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I wanted to raise a concern about tagging house numbers on a building > using a hyphen to denote the address range (e.g 33-55 Main Street). This is > a bad idea because some areas in the United States and possibly elsewhere > use hyphenated street numbers for individual dwellings.[1] Data consumers > see these hyphenated house numbers as one address, as well. Other methods > documented here > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Buildings_with_multiple_house_numbers> > work > better, in my opinion. > > I hope to get some input on this issue and the best path forward. > > Best, Paul > > [1] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens#Streets > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Lawn%2C_New_Jersey#Grid-based_address_system > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address#United_States > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
