2013/1/7 Jan-willem De Bleser <j...@thescrapyard.org> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Sander Deryckere <sander...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Who says that the closest street is in the associatedstreet relation. > That > > relation has nothing to do with the closest street, only with the > > administrative division of houses into streets. > > > > Look at this relation: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1869108 > > > > Hang on, by "closest street" you mean "closest way of a street mapped > as multiple ways"? It's my understanding that, when this is the case, > a house is associated with the way on which it lies. That relation > 1869108 is an example of incorrect mapping, as far as I can see. > > Addresses are associated with a particular stretch of street, aren't > they? I've always taken associatedStreet as a relation trying to > represent this mapping. Or would you maintain that this is true, but > that the stretch of street belonging to an address bears no relation > to where the plot of land belonging to that address is? >
At first the definition of associatedStreet was like you say, but this has been changed. It's too hard to keep it correct (when splitting ways for example). So all the ways forming a street with addresses in the same city, having the same postcode, together with all the houses go into the same associatedStreet relation. BTW, there is a great mapcss for JOSM called ColouredAddresses which give a great overview of what belongs together. Jo
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
