On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski <[email protected]> wrote: > Ian hasn't (yet) mentioned whether this data he deals with contains > potential address ranges or actual ranges, so I assumed actual.
The fact that it's tagged on the line segments representing the road centerline pretty much guarantees that it's potential. I highly doubt they're splitting the line segment every single time a number gets skipped. > I agree it may be useful to have the potential assigned range in the db, > too, using whatever tagging (or in a separate db, since this is not > stuff "on the ground"). I can see keeping it in a separate db, and really I'm leaning toward that as being the best option. What are the advantages of having this in the OSM db? When the roads change, you're going to have to either re-survey the data or throw out the address ranges anyway. The address ranges are pretty much only useful within the context of the original road centerlines. Geocoding or reverse-geocoding software can connect between the two databases using latitude/longitude pairs. I can't really see any point in integrating it. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
