Hiya, On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Toby Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> [..] > Though the address belongs to an area, so it would make sense to keep > > the corresponding boundary. > > Does it? Certainly for official records such as taxes it does. But > this is outside of OSM's domain. > Certainly. An address in OSM is a node. If you must, add it to a building so a user can derive a centroid, but a building centroid can still be wildly inaccurate for address level geocoding. > > In OSM, the use case for address data is geocoding and I would argue > that general use geocoding users would rather get a building outline > or even a node at the main entrance of a location, not the centroid of > the property. In Fresno this may be pretty much the same thing but in > less populated areas, the plot might be rather large and you would > definitely want the address data to be where the actual residence is. > Agreed. What you want is the main entrance to the building. Second best is building centroid, worst is parcel centroid. The thing is, when you offer address level geocoding, you suggest a level of accuracy that you can't offer when you resort to centroids. -- martijn van exel geospatial omnivore 1109 1st ave #2 salt lake city, ut 84103 801-550-5815 http://oegeo.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
