Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:39 PM,  wrote:

> The main critisism is that we map the same address multiple times, but
> in fact they are different things, we have the "Postal Address" at the
> entry and then a node for each buisiness/shop at that address, they all
> share addresses, but represent different things.
>

I'm not sure how it is in your locality, but in my country, offices can be
further "addressed" by using addr:unit=* tags which specify which
unit/space/room the office occupies within the building. Furthermore, if
this is a multi-level building, we can further specify the floor number of
the office via the addr:floor=* (human-readable) and level=*
(machine-readable) tags.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. Oct 2017, at 15:56, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> 
> This is a long-standing issue in OSM. An address is either (1) a feature that 
> can be mapped on its own right and therefore should only exist once on the 
> map, or (2) an attribute or property of some other feature in OSM and 
> therefore can be added to multiple objects that share the same address. Both 
> types of schemes exist on the map right now.



In Italy it is mostly inevitable to put address information on the feature as 
well, because we have very few polygons with addr tags: as every single door / 
access gets its own “housenumber” we typically place them on nodes, and have to 
repeat them on the feature or loose the connection.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Janko Mihelić]

We are arguing about a temporary state of affairs. Sooner or later,
Nominatim and others will be able to assign addresses to nodes inside a
polygon, and renderers will be able to see that the same address is
rendered 3 times. Until then we have to do what we can with what we have.
And not start making up some strange new schemes to make newcomers lifes
hell.

Just start rendering offices, and the problem is temporarily averted.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2017, at 17:01, Marc Zoutendijk  wrote:
> 
> Because all three companies had an office=research tag and because the office 
> tag is not rendered at all on the standard map(!!) but only shows the 
> addr:housenumber (when present), the above described tagging resulted in 
> showing 3 times the same address node on the map. Which by definition is 
> wrong because a given street address (addr:city + addr:street + addr:postcode 
> + addr:housenumber) _must be unique_ - at least in the country (The 
> Netherlands) where I live and where I found this situation.


there’s nothing incompatible with street addresses having to be unique and 
multiple objects having the same address properties. Indeed, they are all 
located at the same unique address. 

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Andrew Harvey]

On 29 October 2017 at 08:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:
>
> & I must admit to being "guilty" of listing both types of address -
> filling in the address details of the type of building / shop / POI & then
> also adding an address node, usually on it's driveway.
>
> My reasoning is that my navigation program (OSMAND) doesn't appear to find
> street numbers if they're only part of the address, but will if they're a
> separate node.
>
> Is it the "right" way of doing things? - who knows & does it matter? What
> is the purpose of the map - looking good, laid out neatly & tidily, or
> being usable for navigation purposes?
>

I think that's fine. By adding the address tags to a shop, someone who
searches for the shop, immediately has the full formed address for it.

By adding an address as it's own generic node (mailbox, driveway, entrance,
etc) or way (parcel of land) someone who searches for the address can find
it irrespective of the shop. This is kind of what GNAF in Australia offers
by the way, complementary to address existing on other OSM features.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[marc marc]

Le 28. 10. 17 à 23:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
> My reasoning is that my navigation program (OSMAND) doesn't appear to 
> find street numbers if they're only part of the address, but will if 
> they're a separate node.


I know a lot of area (for exemple Brussels, Belgium) having housenumber 
only on building.
I never read that osmand fail to find it.
test it by yourself and if it is fail, fill a bug report.

 > who knows & does it matter?
duplicate all addr take more time to create/update than that having
one working system that doesn't need duplicate info
And more annoying, the duplicate info always ends up being out of sync 
and it becomes difficult to know which is the correct version

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 29 October 2017 at 00:25, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Exactly, typical of OSM... If we can't sort this out, we will just
> continue to go round in circles. How does one tell the difference, or which
> type of address is intended? What if we want to put both types of address
> on the same object?
>
>
> On 28 October 2017 15:56:22 CEST, Eugene Alvin Villar 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2017 8:03 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:
>>
>> Time for a more philosophical discussion... What is the function of this
>> thing we call "address"? Is it to identify a premises? Is it to describe a
>> premises? Does it refer to the whole premises, or just the bit with the
>> front door or letter box? Or is it "where to deliver post"?
>>
>> This is a long-standing issue in OSM. An address is either (1) a feature
>> that can be mapped on its own right and therefore should only exist once on
>> the map, or (2) an attribute or property of some other feature in OSM and
>> therefore can be added to multiple objects that share the same address.
>> Both types of schemes exist on the map right now.
>>
>
& I must admit to being "guilty" of listing both types of address - filling
in the address details of the type of building / shop / POI & then also
adding an address node, usually on it's driveway.

My reasoning is that my navigation program (OSMAND) doesn't appear to find
street numbers if they're only part of the address, but will if they're a
separate node.

Is it the "right" way of doing things? - who knows & does it matter? What
is the purpose of the map - looking good, laid out neatly & tidily, or
being usable for navigation purposes?

Thanks

Graeme

>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Colin Smale]

Exactly, typical of OSM... If we can't sort this out, we will just continue to 
go round in circles. How does one tell the difference, or which type of address 
is intended? What if we want to put both types of address on the same object?

On 28 October 2017 15:56:22 CEST, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
>On Oct 27, 2017 8:03 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:
>
>Time for a more philosophical discussion... What is the function of
>this
>thing we call "address"? Is it to identify a premises? Is it to
>describe a
>premises? Does it refer to the whole premises, or just the bit with the
>front door or letter box? Or is it "where to deliver post"?
>
>This is a long-standing issue in OSM. An address is either (1) a
>feature
>that can be mapped on its own right and therefore should only exist
>once on
>the map, or (2) an attribute or property of some other feature in OSM
>and
>therefore can be added to multiple objects that share the same address.
>Both types of schemes exist on the map right now.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Oct 27, 2017 8:03 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:

Time for a more philosophical discussion... What is the function of this
thing we call "address"? Is it to identify a premises? Is it to describe a
premises? Does it refer to the whole premises, or just the bit with the
front door or letter box? Or is it "where to deliver post"?

This is a long-standing issue in OSM. An address is either (1) a feature
that can be mapped on its own right and therefore should only exist once on
the map, or (2) an attribute or property of some other feature in OSM and
therefore can be added to multiple objects that share the same address.
Both types of schemes exist on the map right now.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Simon Poole]

IMHO three nodes is the solution, add level tags if they are not on the
same floor.

If the address was on the building polygon duplicating the address
information on the POI would not be necessary, but knowing Dutch
numbering schemes, that likely doesn't make sense.

I consider this problem slightly different to the normal one object that
has multiple top level attributes issue, as this is clearly the case of
multiple separate objects sharing common sub tags which I don't really
consider a big problem (assume for example one of the offices moves, the
office node in question can simply be  moved to the new location and
address changes, history preserved. easy to do  for beginners and so on).

Simon

Am 26.10.2017 um 17:01 schrieb Marc Zoutendijk:
> Hi all,
>
> Recently I discovered a tagging where at the same street address and
> house number, 3 different (although related) companies  are located. 
> Because adding multiple values to the same key is not easy to do in
> OSM, (mostly used for adding more telephone numbers, separating the
> numbers with a semicolon), and in this case the mapper had chosen to
> simply add three nodes and duplicate all the relevant address tags.
> Because all three companies had an office=research tag and because the
> office tag is not rendered at all on the standard map(!!) but only
> shows the addr:housenumber (when present), the above described tagging
> resulted in showing 3 times the same address node on the map. Which by
> definition is wrong because a given street address (addr:city +
> addr:street + addr:postcode + addr:housenumber) _must be unique_ - at
> least in the country (The Netherlands) where I live and where I found
> this situation.
>
> In The Netherlands _all_ buildings and the related address nodes were
> (and still are) imported in a huge import (BAG) which was discussed
> years ago and also presented in a wiki:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/BAGimport
>
> Dutch mappers usually add POI information (like a shop, restaurant,
> hotel etc. ) to an existing address node and usually this works well,
> except when we face the situation where more objects share that very
> same address. E.g. it is not uncommon to have a hotel and a bar share
> the same building and address. In this case the hotel is added to the
> (existing) address node and a new node is created for the bar, but
> without the address information and this node is simply put within the
> contour of the hotel building.
>
> The situation I’m describing here, with 3 research offices all sharing
> the same address would (could?) lead to tagging like this:
>
> addr:street=streetname
> addr:housenumber=X
> office=research
> name=“name of first office”;”name of second office”;”name of third office”
> webiste=“website-1”;“website-2”;“website-3”
> phone=“phonenumber-1”;“phonenumber-1”;“phonenumber-1”
>
>
> Which wouldn’t be my choice of solving this problem, suppose the
> values for office would differ as well, this would give even more
> complicated tag combinations. Maintaining/checking it would be cumbersome.
> How to render this mess?
>
> Other solutions have been presented over the years in various wikis,
> forums and mailing-lists, but a satisfactory solution still has to be
> found, hence my question to continue reading and study this proposal
> that was done in 2011:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/associatedAddress
>
> I wrote the mapper who proposed this a PM and he replied with the
> message that he is no longer very active on OSM.
> I have used this proposed relation for the tagging of the 3 named
> offices here:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7676306
>
> Of course because this is an unsupported type of relation, nothing
> shows on the map, save the (one) house number, but here you can see
> the situation as it was before I added my changes:
>
> https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/vgHPvYALM4p7n6t
>
> With tools like OpenPoiMap you can see some results, but because the
> address tags are removed you have to guess that those 3 offices share
> the same address:
> http://openpoimap.org/?map=various=18=52.81317=6.39542=B00TFFF
>
>
> I must say that this way of tagging (with a relation) looks quite
> clear to me, is easy to do and opens up many possibilities. But is it
> easy to render once accepted? 
>
> Hence:
>
> 1. Should we continue and discuss and finally vote for the proposal
> mentioned above?
> 2. Can you think of another solution for this specific problem: “how
> to map/tag multiple (sometimes even not related) objects to the same
> (one) address node?”
>
> Thanks for any input,
> Marc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Colin Smale]

On 2017-10-27 08:07, José G Moya Y. wrote:

> But from the outside tou can't see if the office is in "Gran Via 1 shop 2" or 
> "Gran Via 1 shop 3", despite of the shop number being displayed in the 
> mailbox.

The fact that you can't see it from the outside doesn't make it untrue.
Maybe it is verifiable in another way. Is it possible that the "shop 2"
and "shop 3" labels are an informal thing between the shopkeepers, and
unrecorded in official registers?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[José G Moya Y .]

But from the outside tou can't see if the office is in "Gran Via 1 shop 2"
or "Gran Via 1 shop 3", despite of the shop number being displayed in the
mailbox.

El 27/10/2017 8:03, "Colin Smale"  escribió:

> Time for a more philosophical discussion... What is the function of this
> thing we call "address"? Is it to identify a premises? Is it to describe a
> premises? Does it refer to the whole premises, or just the bit with the
> front door or letter box? Or is it "where to deliver post"?
>
> Here in NL buildings all have unique numbers in a big register, and there
> is a n..m mapping between addresses and buildings. Only enclosed
> constructions "where a person can stand" are counted as buildings. An
> address can include sub-units like "167A" or "23-3" (third floor flat for
> example). If there are multiple households or organisations sharing the
> same letter box, they have the same address. So you can say the address is
> a logical concept, not a physical one. So no problems with having multiple
> nodes with the same address if they represent different organisations.
>
>
> //colin
>
> On 2017-10-27 03:31, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>
>
>
> On 27/10/17 11:20, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> The OSM rule is clear - "One feature, one OSM element". Thus 3 offices, 3
> nodes.
>
>
> So 1 address 1 node (or 1 polygon if you know the spatial extent)?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Andrew Davidson]

Two problems:

1. Site relations are for grouping features that can't be represented as 
an area.

2. The KISS principle.

On 27/10/17 13:01, Warin wrote:
1 address on a site relation that contains these features - including 
the building?


On 27-Oct-17 12:31 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:



On 27/10/17 11:20, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
The OSM rule is clear - "One feature, one OSM element". Thus 3 
offices, 3 nodes.


So 1 address 1 node (or 1 polygon if you know the spatial extent)?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 27/10/17 11:20, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
The OSM rule is clear - "One feature, one OSM element". Thus 3 offices, 
3 nodes.


So 1 address 1 node (or 1 polygon if you know the spatial extent)?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 26.10.2017 23:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Would an easy solution be to just call them Unit 1, Unit 2 & Unit 3, even though the actual offices 
may not be physically designated that way?


Absolutely not. Please do not invent identifiers that do not exist in reality. Further, it would not 
solve the problem, having 3 units is not different from having 3 offices.


On 26.10.2017 17:01, Marc Zoutendijk wrote:
> Recently I discovered a tagging where at the same street address and house 
number, 3 different
> (although related) companies  are located.

The OSM rule is clear - "One feature, one OSM element". Thus 3 offices, 3 nodes.

> the office tag is not rendered at all on the standard map ...showing 3 times the same address 
node on the map


That does not matter. If they render the housenumber 3 times, file a ticket in carto. Rendering 
office values is being discussed there already.


> Which by definition is wrong because a given street address _must be
> unique_ - at least in the country (The Netherlands) where I live and where I 
found this situation.

First you would need to check the exact wording of this definition (do you have a source?), probably 
it says that the address per house must be unique. It unlikely says that there cannot be multiple 
entities in this house.


The OSM address tagging is a closer description of the entity, in this case the offices, which are 
all in the same house, thus have the same address.


> E.g. it is not uncommon to have a hotel and a bar share the same building
> and address. In this case the hotel is added to the (existing) address node 
and a new node is
> created for the bar,

This is fine as the hotel is the major feature and the bar is subordinated.

> but without the address information and this node is simply put within the contour of the hotel 
building.


This is fine, and it does not hurt to have the address on the bar as well.

> name=“name of first office”;”name of second office”;”name of third office”

Aaargh, no, please. One feature, one OSM element

> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/associatedAddress

Isn't that a dead horse?

On 26.10.2017 23:12, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Honest question, what is lost or wrong with having the address appear on 
multiple objects?

Honest answer - nothing wrong, fine for me. One feature, one OSM element.

On 26.10.2017 23:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> How do you work addresses / POIs when you have someone work from home? EG it is a normal 
residential building, in a residential suburb, but the front room is also an "accountant's" office


way: building=residential as this is the major feature
node within the building: office=* since this is subordinated (if that is a real office, e.g. 
receiving visitors, not just a private room to work in)


tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Andrew Harvey]

> Which by definition is wrong because a given street address (addr:city +
addr:street + addr:postcode + addr:housenumber) _must be unique_ - at least
in the country (The Netherlands) where I live and where I found this
situation.

Honest question, what is lost or wrong with having the address appear on
multiple objects?

In this case the address tags are simply supporting the primary key (shop=,
or office=, or amenity=, etc) to note the address of that entity. The
address tags can also go on the building and/or parcel of land.

On 27 October 2017 at 02:01, Marc Zoutendijk  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Recently I discovered a tagging where at the same street address and house
> number, 3 different (although related) companies  are located.
> Because adding multiple values to the same key is not easy to do in OSM,
> (mostly used for adding more telephone numbers, separating the numbers with
> a semicolon), and in this case the mapper had chosen to simply add three
> nodes and duplicate all the relevant address tags.
> Because all three companies had an office=research tag and because the
> office tag is not rendered at all on the standard map(!!) but only shows
> the addr:housenumber (when present), the above described tagging resulted
> in showing 3 times the same address node on the map. Which by definition is
> wrong because a given street address (addr:city + addr:street +
> addr:postcode + addr:housenumber) _must be unique_ - at least in the
> country (The Netherlands) where I live and where I found this situation.
>
> In The Netherlands _all_ buildings and the related address nodes were (and
> still are) imported in a huge import (BAG) which was discussed years ago
> and also presented in a wiki:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/BAGimport
>
> Dutch mappers usually add POI information (like a shop, restaurant, hotel
> etc. ) to an existing address node and usually this works well, except when
> we face the situation where more objects share that very same address. E.g.
> it is not uncommon to have a hotel and a bar share the same building and
> address. In this case the hotel is added to the (existing) address node and
> a new node is created for the bar, but without the address information and
> this node is simply put within the contour of the hotel building.
>
> The situation I’m describing here, with 3 research offices all sharing the
> same address would (could?) lead to tagging like this:
>
> addr:street=streetname
> addr:housenumber=X
> office=research
> name=“name of first office”;”name of second office”;”name of third office”
> webiste=“website-1”;“website-2”;“website-3”
> phone=“phonenumber-1”;“phonenumber-1”;“phonenumber-1”
>
>
> Which wouldn’t be my choice of solving this problem, suppose the values
> for office would differ as well, this would give even more complicated tag
> combinations. Maintaining/checking it would be cumbersome.
> How to render this mess?
>
> Other solutions have been presented over the years in various wikis,
> forums and mailing-lists, but a satisfactory solution still has to be
> found, hence my question to continue reading and study this proposal that
> was done in 2011:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/associatedAddress
>
> I wrote the mapper who proposed this a PM and he replied with the message
> that he is no longer very active on OSM.
> I have used this proposed relation for the tagging of the 3 named offices
> here:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7676306
>
> Of course because this is an unsupported type of relation, nothing shows
> on the map, save the (one) house number, but here you can see the situation
> as it was before I added my changes:
>
> https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/vgHPvYALM4p7n6t
>
> With tools like OpenPoiMap you can see some results, but because the
> address tags are removed you have to guess that those 3 offices share the
> same address:
> http://openpoimap.org/?map=various=18=52.81317;
> lon=6.39542=B00TFFF
>
>
> I must say that this way of tagging (with a relation) looks quite clear to
> me, is easy to do and opens up many possibilities. But is it easy to render
> once accepted?
>
> Hence:
>
> 1. Should we continue and discuss and finally vote for the proposal
> mentioned above?
> 2. Can you think of another solution for this specific problem: “how to
> map/tag multiple (sometimes even not related) objects to the same (one)
> address node?”
>
> Thanks for any input,
> Marc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[marc marc]

Hello,

Le 26. 10. 17 à 17:01, Marc Zoutendijk a écrit :
> Recently I discovered a tagging where at the same street address and 
> house number, 3 different (although related) companies  are located.
The solution that advocates the proposal you mentioned is to put the 
address on the building and put the 3 POI in the building (without address).
However, except nominatim, no tool I know is able to display the POI 
address when selected, I think this need to be improved.
Due to this, in France, some "decided" that POI addresses were prefixed 
by the "contact" namespace, in order to make them unique and different 
from the "postal" addresses of the buildings. However, this is different 
from the meaning given on the wiki for whom contact: is only an alias to 
the other keys.

> office=research
> name=“name of first office”;”name of second office”;”name of third office”
> webiste=“website-1”;“website-2”;“website-3”

it this case (same office value) it work but it 'll become very ugly
if a building contain a research, a bar and another office
therefore I think it's better to move each POI to its own node/way

> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/associatedAddress
> 1. Should we continue and discuss and finally vote for the proposal 
> mentioned above?

I think it is necessary to first improve the simple (and more common) 
case support (a building with an address and several POIs) before adding 
a relationship that covers cases in my opinion quite rare (I do not not 
yet met even though I do not doubt it exists)

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Marc Zoutendijk]

Hi all,

Recently I discovered a tagging where at the same street address and house 
number, 3 different (although related) companies  are located. 
Because adding multiple values to the same key is not easy to do in OSM, 
(mostly used for adding more telephone numbers, separating the numbers with a 
semicolon), and in this case the mapper had chosen to simply add three nodes 
and duplicate all the relevant address tags.
Because all three companies had an office=research tag and because the office 
tag is not rendered at all on the standard map(!!) but only shows the 
addr:housenumber (when present), the above described tagging resulted in 
showing 3 times the same address node on the map. Which by definition is wrong 
because a given street address (addr:city + addr:street + addr:postcode + 
addr:housenumber) _must be unique_ - at least in the country (The Netherlands) 
where I live and where I found this situation.

In The Netherlands _all_ buildings and the related address nodes were (and 
still are) imported in a huge import (BAG) which was discussed years ago and 
also presented in a wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/BAGimport 


Dutch mappers usually add POI information (like a shop, restaurant, hotel etc. 
) to an existing address node and usually this works well, except when we face 
the situation where more objects share that very same address. E.g. it is not 
uncommon to have a hotel and a bar share the same building and address. In this 
case the hotel is added to the (existing) address node and a new node is 
created for the bar, but without the address information and this node is 
simply put within the contour of the hotel building.

The situation I’m describing here, with 3 research offices all sharing the same 
address would (could?) lead to tagging like this:

addr:street=streetname
addr:housenumber=X
office=research
name=“name of first office”;”name of second office”;”name of third office”
webiste=“website-1”;“website-2”;“website-3”
phone=“phonenumber-1”;“phonenumber-1”;“phonenumber-1”


Which wouldn’t be my choice of solving this problem, suppose the values for 
office would differ as well, this would give even more complicated tag 
combinations. Maintaining/checking it would be cumbersome.
How to render this mess?

Other solutions have been presented over the years in various wikis, forums and 
mailing-lists, but a satisfactory solution still has to be found, hence my 
question to continue reading and study this proposal that was done in 2011:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/associatedAddress 


I wrote the mapper who proposed this a PM and he replied with the message that 
he is no longer very active on OSM.
I have used this proposed relation for the tagging of the 3 named offices here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7676306 


Of course because this is an unsupported type of relation, nothing shows on the 
map, save the (one) house number, but here you can see the situation as it was 
before I added my changes:

https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/vgHPvYALM4p7n6t 


With tools like OpenPoiMap you can see some results, but because the address 
tags are removed you have to guess that those 3 offices share the same address:
http://openpoimap.org/?map=various=18=52.81317=6.39542=B00TFFF


I must say that this way of tagging (with a relation) looks quite clear to me, 
is easy to do and opens up many possibilities. But is it easy to render once 
accepted? 

Hence:

1. Should we continue and discuss and finally vote for the proposal mentioned 
above?
2. Can you think of another solution for this specific problem: “how to map/tag 
multiple (sometimes even not related) objects to the same (one) address node?”

Thanks for any input,
Marc.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging