Hey all,
> Hello,
>
> Le 15.06.20 à 08:23, Sander Deryckere a écrit :
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.87528/4.69102
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/499694374
> this look like a mistake :
> wiki : marking range of numbers of flats behind a door,
> but the object isn't a door, it's a building
Huh, I edited that region recently.
When importing via JOSM the addr:flats don't stand out that much because it
just renders the housenumbers. I usually don't even notice until uploading. I
think I'll be converting the obviously old imported addr:flats' in Leuven to
"note=possible addr:flats: ... " with a FIXME.
On 16/06/2020 10:47, joost schouppe wrote:
> Sander,
> I absolutely agree with this!
> However, as much as I am a fan of CRAB, I don't really trust the
> subaddresses. They caused me way too many headaches when I still worked in
> the city of Antwerp. Anecdotally, I've surveyed one building for subaddresses
> near me, and there was zero correlation between what was on the post boxes
> and what was in CRAB. So while I agree the info is useful, I wouldn't
> recommend importing it. And a cursory glance at the data shows that almost
> all addr:flats we have, are in fact imported. See
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/V7K - the vast majority here has the tell-tale
> source:geometry:date tag from the GRB import; the ones I checked that haven't
> seem to be CRAB-imports.
>
> Op ma 15 jun. 2020 om 14:59 schreef Sander Deryckere <sander...@gmail.com>:
>
>> You can do things with that data besides rendering or using it as a route
>> location.
>>
>> If the data is more or less complete, you can process it to get the number
>> of addresses on a street or in an area (for example, if you want to
>> distribute a folder to the entire street).
>> Or as a postal service, you can check if that address needs a flat number,
>> and suggest a list of flats to the users.
>>
>> Like that, I always considered the values worth to be in OSM, even if it's
>> all on the same door/building. Though it's obviously a lot less important
>> than housenumbers.
>>
>> Op ma 15 jun. 2020 om 14:47 schreef Marc M. <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>> if one building have 2 entrance, it's useful to describe with entrance
>>> need to be used to reach this flats number.
>>> but having all flats number on the building or on one-only entrance,
>>> is like "to reach the inside of the building, reach the building".
>>> it's a bit like adding entrance=yes on the building to say that a
>>> building has an entrance somewhere, you don't add any real information.
>>>
>>> so at this place, I would not have added any addr:flats which would have
>>> solved the problem of rendering :) I will only use it in the case of a
>>> building with more than one entrance, and so addr:flats on the entrance
>>> does not disturb the display of addr:housenumber for the whole building.
>>>
>>> Le 15.06.20 à 13:55, Lionel Giard a écrit :
>>>> The tagging is correct, it is just not supposed to be on area from the
>>>> wiki perspective. But indeed I don't see why it is incorrect when a
>>>> building is only containing this series of flats and only one entrance ?
>>>> And if that's incorrect why are they rendering addr:flats on area and
>>>> not node ?! ^^'
>>>>
>>>> Le lun. 15 juin 2020 à 13:32, joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Most of this data comes from the GRB import, I would guess. So it
>>>> comes from CRAB. We use the addr:flats to map the "subaddresses".
>>>> It seems a little weird to not be able to add the subaddresses on
>>>> the same object that has the main address.
>>>> The CRAB import tool mentioned this as an optional tag, that is not
>>>> so useful for OSM:
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AGIV_CRAB_Import#Optional_tags.2C_provided_by_the_tool
>>>> I would concur that the quality of the data is not good enough to
>>>> import it.
>>>> Both examples come from endless_autumn, who did a rather
>>>> quick-and-dirty GRB import - a lot of which was reverted.
>>>> The GRB-import-validator Midgard made actually flags the flats tag
>>>> as "consider removing" as well.
>>>> That said, the wiki doesn't say much about the logic of
>>>> "subaddresses", maybe we shouldn't use the addr:flats tag -at all-
>>>> for subaddresses?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Op ma 15 jun. 2020 om 09:22 schreef Sander Deryckere
>>>> <sander...@gmail.com <mailto:sander...@gmail.com>>:
>>>>
>>>> Hmm,
>>>>
>>>> it seems indeed that, according to the wiki, this should not be
>>>> placed on areas.
>>>> However, I expect that in all these cases, all flats are
>>>> accessible behind the same door.
>>>> So correcting the tag will have the same effect.
>>>>
>>>> Op ma 15 jun. 2020 om 09:12 schreef Marc M.
>>>> <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com <mailto:marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>>:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Le 15.06.20 à 08:23, Sander Deryckere a écrit :
>>>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.87528/4.69102
>>>>
>>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/499694374
>>>> this look like a mistake :
>>>> wiki : marking range of numbers of flats behind a door,
>>>> but the object isn't a door, it's a building
>>>>
>>>> maybe osm.carto should avoid to render tagging mistake and
>>>> target
>>>> only node and maybe only with entrance or door tag
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Marc
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
> --
>
> Joost Schouppe
> [OpenStreetMap](http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/) |
> [Twitter](https://twitter.com/joostjakob) |
> [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603) |
> [Meetup](http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/)
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
