On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Alex Barth <a...@mapbox.com> wrote: > ## Option 2: Always keep address points separate > > In this case we never merge addresses to building polygons, instead always > keep them as separate entities. > > Pros: > > a) this is the NYC GIS way, making it nicer for GIS folks to use OSM > b) this is the generally applicable method. No matter whether we have one > or multiple addresses you can expect to find a separate node carrying > address information. > c) retains useful information > > Cons: > > a) Diverges (but does not violate [1]) common OSM practice > > Note: it has been suggested to use the address location information to tag > an entrance. Unfortunately the data is not consistent enough to do this. > > ## Recommendation >
Option 2 makes more sense for routing. The router software positions you to the entrance. OSM can have a distinct advantage if we can route better. However, you should first verify that the data actually is located at the building entrance. If only a small percentage is correct, it may not be the best choice. We still need help with editors when deleting nodes. When a node contains both an amenity and address information, the editors delete both when just the amenity needs deleting. Addresses don't change all that often. Placing addresses on the building polygon helps because buildings typically last longer than amenities. -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
