This may be stating the obvious, but it's a lot less effort to capture address ranges for each block than to capture an accurate location for each individual building. I think that's the primary reason why most geocoding systems use this approach. But it's not either / or - if you're doing geocoding, you can look for a specific location for a given address, if you don't find that then you fall back to an approximation based on address range.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > It's a fairly well established convention that in OSM it's the > > houses/plots, not the road centrelines, that are addressed. > > But that doesn't always reflect reality. The reality, at least in > many parts of the world, is that the streets are given blocks of > potential addresses, and the houses/plots/whatever are given actual > addresses from those potential address blocks. > > > I'd say it's better to approximate the gap between the road and the > houses > > (10m?) than to just put it on the centreline due to that being easier. > > First of all, how would you approximate the gap? You mean by hand? > > Secondly, what if the houses aren't yet there? Tiger address data > represents *potential* address blocks, not *actual* address blocks. > There may or may not be any actual houses along those roads. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
