2013/6/11 Glenn Plas <[email protected]> > On 06/11/2013 05:29 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > An update on my problem with postalcode 12 appearing on some roads in > Rumst when you do a seach on openstreetmap.org. > > I posted my question in the help forum. One of the nominatim maintainers > (I assume), dropped the node that was tagged with postal code 12. It was > somewhere in the nominatim database and could not be removed by editing via > Josm (or another editor). > > Since then I found that nominatim often returns the wrong postal code > for streets in Hingene. I assume it is caused by their "closed node" > algorithm, which return a 9000 code, simply because it's the nearest node > with a postal_code. I solved this by adding a postal_code tag with the > correct number on the street itself. An associated street relation with the > correct number does not work. > > > > Marc, > > Tx for the information, I'm compiling nominatim documentation about the > inner workings and this goes against everything I learned so far, > especially the associated street relation not taking precedence in this > case is quite surprising to me with what I know so far. Very > interesting. Now I know for sure that I don't know it all yet. > > By going to the nominatim code and the database schema's I was about to > debunk my own words in the past, now I need to re-reconsider. (I've set up > several myself and use them in production). Seems that noone can really > explain in simpel steps how the inner things work so I was giving it a > try. Really appreciate you taking the time to share this. >
Could it be that Nominatim is caching for too long and that it takes a long time to take update information in OSM in account? Jo
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
