Hi Jason, all. I added the addr:city to the tags to use w/o confirming first - what is the balance between adding the address information directly on the building as opposed to using the boundaries?
I suppose that for the ease of processing the building will need to have as much information as possible, but then we will have two sources of truth e.g. for city or zipcode - boundaries and the node. Now, current status: I have just terraced Back Bay (a historical district in Boston, old narrow houses, around 1000 of them) and found this to be less fun than I imagined :) Additionally a look at South Boston shows that there are less building ranges, and more building numbers that point to the same building (e.g. number 45 is on first floor, 47 is on the second). As much as I'd hate to do that, there appears to be no other way to handle this than adding the address node, as I saw done in NY and Seattle (and how e.g. Here maps handles it - no buildings, just numbers on the ground). Now, that also means that I need to start operating on the tax parcel shapefile to verify whether the building needs to be split or an address node needs to be added. I added an exception for buildings with source:addr=survey, as I found that it is of no use trying to repeatedly mark a building which was manually tagged and verified to have a different number than the official one as "fixme". So far there are ~3 buildings with this tag, but there will be more as I am going through the dataset and buildings on the ground. -- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Boston_Street_Address_Manage ment_%28SAM%29_Import
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
