I haven't seen such guidelines for the UK myself. In general people prefer having address tags on buildings. Separate address points are more of a stop gap solution until building shapes are sufficiently accurate.
An exception is addresses on entrances, which some mappers seem to prefer. I can simply avoid such areas. Some clarifications: - Code-Point Open contains only one data entry (point) per postcode. It is located near the centroid and snapped to a nearest building (technically delivery point). So the scope is fairly small. - This is automatic editing, not an import. I can skip areas that use different addressing conventions. There is still over a hundred thousands of simple cases that can save a lot of manual work. - I ignore postcodes that are already in OSM near that location. So it is an additive process (no changes or deletions) - Manual methods are not perfect either, due to Code-Point Open limitations. But it is still the only legal source of postcodes in bulk we have (licensed by the owner). Best regards, ndrw6 On 17 July 2019 10:07:52 BST, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote: > > > >16 lip 2019, 23:19 od nd...@redhazel.co.uk: > >> added as separate points rather than tags (automated edit will add >addr:postcode tags directly to the building, this is what I chose to do >manually as well) >> >Duplicating address data or adding >part to a separate node and part to >building outline seems incorrect to be. > >At least in Poland address imports >are obligated to handle this situation.
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
