Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Florian Lohoff]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 07:04:20AM +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Perhaps I was not clear, what was pointed out is that it is sufficient
> to have the address on the building, there is no need to repeat it on
> the POI (besides the parts that are different such as unit_nr or
> floor).
> Although I now think that person said that it would be OK to have the
> address on a separate node next to the POI, which does not work if you
> only see a list of nearby Foobar POIs. In that list you want to see
> addresses as well.

I duplicate the address on the POI as then the POI is self contained. So
once the POI disappears the complete object may be deleted and not some
tags sorted.

A huge issue in workflow IMHO is that tags stay behind after some POI
disappears, or better, parts of the address get accidentally deleted
by someone editing the POIs information from an tag aggregating Object.

So i try to seperate out the individual functions of the objects. Makes
it much simpler in maintaining the data.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 1/10/20 00:04, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Perhaps I was not clear, what was pointed out is that it is sufficient
> to have the address on the building, there is no need to repeat it on
> the POI (besides the parts that are different such as unit_nr or
> floor).

A lot of retail buildings here are set up such that the first shop has,
say, 100, then the next one down 102, then 104, etc up to whatever
number. Other times they will get suite/unit letters or numbers and the
entire building will have one number; at least one case exists where
multiple buildings have the same address number and different buildings
have different suite/unit numbers at that same address.

Just to be sure there's no ambiguity, I repeat the parts of the address
that may be in common when I map new businesses. So far, JOSM's
validator hasn't flagged that as an error or warning as long as
something changes between each address.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Marc Gemis]

Perhaps I was not clear, what was pointed out is that it is sufficient
to have the address on the building, there is no need to repeat it on
the POI (besides the parts that are different such as unit_nr or
floor).
Although I now think that person said that it would be OK to have the
address on a separate node next to the POI, which does not work if you
only see a list of nearby Foobar POIs. In that list you want to see
addresses as well.



On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 6:40 AM Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
>
> On 1/9/20 22:54, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > Recently someone told me that addresses are not important for POIs,
> > and perhaps he was right.
> > Suppose I want to navigate to a particular shop in that mall. I tell
> > the router I need to go to that shop. If the point of that shop is
> > properly mapped and all footways from the parking and indoor corridors
> > are mapped, the router should be able to take me there. Does it matter
> > that the POI has an address, or that it is put on the building,
> > perhaps not, as long as its coordinate are correct.
>
> Having the address can ensure one has the right POI when there are other
> similar ones in the area. Consider the rather infamous case of Houston's
> "Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks" (2029 and 2050 West Gray
> Street, near South Shepherd Drive). There are also the two different
> Starbucks locations in The Galleria (usually disambiguated by floor as
> one is ground level by the elevators and financial tower, one is on the
> second floor closer to the ice rink) which would at minimum have
> different unit numbers.
>
> --
> Shawn K. Quinn 
> http://www.rantroulette.com
> http://www.skqrecordquest.com
>
> ___
> 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] addresses on buildings

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 1/9/20 22:54, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Recently someone told me that addresses are not important for POIs,
> and perhaps he was right.
> Suppose I want to navigate to a particular shop in that mall. I tell
> the router I need to go to that shop. If the point of that shop is
> properly mapped and all footways from the parking and indoor corridors
> are mapped, the router should be able to take me there. Does it matter
> that the POI has an address, or that it is put on the building,
> perhaps not, as long as its coordinate are correct.

Having the address can ensure one has the right POI when there are other
similar ones in the area. Consider the rather infamous case of Houston's
"Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks" (2029 and 2050 West Gray
Street, near South Shepherd Drive). There are also the two different
Starbucks locations in The Galleria (usually disambiguated by floor as
one is ground level by the elevators and financial tower, one is on the
second floor closer to the ice rink) which would at minimum have
different unit numbers.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Marc Gemis]

Recently someone told me that addresses are not important for POIs,
and perhaps he was right.
Suppose I want to navigate to a particular shop in that mall. I tell
the router I need to go to that shop. If the point of that shop is
properly mapped and all footways from the parking and indoor corridors
are mapped, the router should be able to take me there. Does it matter
that the POI has an address, or that it is put on the building,
perhaps not, as long as its coordinate are correct.

OTOH, when one of my friends lives in a large apartment building
complex, I do only have an address. So perhaps the building has
multiple entrances, which are marked with different house numbers,
groups of flat numbers, or something else. In that case, I want to be
able to navigate to the correct entrance. For that, the navigation
software needs to bring me to the correct entrance. Unlike malls,
apartment buildings often require you to choose the right entrance and
you cannot go from one part of the building to the other. So here the
address(es) should go on the entrances.

Furthermore if I want to send a mail (paper-type) to a shop, it is
interesting to know its correct address, and having only a general
address on the building does not help.

So yes, different usage might require different mapping.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:06 AM marc marc  wrote:
>
> Le 06.01.20 à 08:47, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> > If you have HUGE Buildings i use a node with an address.
>
> it's amazing the difference in usage.
> I find that addr nodes are very problematic for hudge buildings like
> shopping malls or train stations. the localisation of the node forces
> the routing to go to a specific location when you may be closer to
> another entrance.
> By putting the address on the building, you can not only allow quality
> reverse geocoding for the whole building, but also allow advanced
> routing to select the closest entry instead of going to the preferred
> entry of the contributor who entered the address.
>
> ___
> 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] addresses on buildings

[marc marc]

Le 06.01.20 à 08:47, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> If you have HUGE Buildings i use a node with an address.

it's amazing the difference in usage.
I find that addr nodes are very problematic for hudge buildings like
shopping malls or train stations. the localisation of the node forces
the routing to go to a specific location when you may be closer to
another entrance.
By putting the address on the building, you can not only allow quality
reverse geocoding for the whole building, but also allow advanced
routing to select the closest entry instead of going to the preferred
entry of the contributor who entered the address.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Jan 2020, at 14:40, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> In that, very exceptional case, it might be useful to put addresses on
> entrances (except it's possible all entrances interconnect via corridors).  I 
> have no
> problem with exceptional tagging to handle exceptional circumstances but I 
> find it
> perverse to use exceptional tagging in the general case just so that tagging 
> is uniform.


around here it is not the exception but the norm.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-01-07 22:21, Paul Allen wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 21:00, Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
>> So if I am now more explicit about my intention to help this discussion 
>> towards a conclusion.
> 
> Actually, you sorta hijacked a discussion about whether to put the address on 
> a 
> building or a nearby gatepost.  This discussion is probably needed too.

I don't think it was so much hijacking the discussion, more getting it
back to fundamentals. If an address is for the benefit of delivering
letters, its location in OSM should ideally approximate to the postal
delivery point: the front door, the front gate... Locating it implicitly
at the centroid of the building outline, or the centroid of the
associated grounds, would be suboptimal. A building, being a single OSM
object, can only really have one address. As a building can
fundamentally have N (maybe hundreds for blocks of flats) addresses for
postal purposes, then there is no point in putting an address on a
building. If a company resides in a premises, it may be useful to put
their postal address adjacent to (i.e. on the same OSM object as) the
other attributes of the company as "contact information" i.e. how to
address a letter so it gets to this building, but not by definition what
to put in your satnav. Then if multiple companies share an OSM building
they all have their own node and thus their own address. HOWEVER if you
want an address for navigation purposes, a single set of address
components will suffice to get you to the right building, irrespective
of who you are visiting. 

Fix the complex case, and the rest is easy. 

>> What an address refers to, is different in the UK compared to other 
>> countries. We will never find a single model to fit the whole world that is 
>> not abstracted to the point that it becomes useless. Let's stop chasing our 
>> tails, and accept that.
> 
> Already have.  Long ago.  Not sure that what we have, even in the UK, is 
> entirely 
> fit for purpose because I have several examples in my own town alone that 
> don't fit 
> that model.  These are, to some extent, country-specific editor preset 
> issues: figure 
> out what works in a given country and persuade the people maintaining the 
> editors to 
> adopt it.  Yes, I'm simplifying a lot (again). 
> 
>> Back to the philosophical question: Is a normal "address" in OSM: a) for 
>> delivering letters, or b) for navigation, or c) an identifier of a 
>> building/premises, or d) something else?
> 
> The philosophical question is actually should we limit/prohibit any of those 
> uses?  I 
> think not.  We can't force any mapper to add all of the info, but we ought 
> not to prevent 
> them from doing so. 
> 
>> Should/could we cater for these different definitions of "address", e.g. by 
>> having tags like addr:{address_type}:{address_element}? This is a question 
>> that IMHO is probably best addressed at global level; then let each country 
>> have its own model within that framework.
> 
> Gut feeling, without any real analysis, is we don't have address_type, we 
> just have 
> address_elements.  Because in one country address_element X may be a critical 
> component of address_type A but in another country it's a critical component 
> of 
> address_type B.  Just have address elements and it's up to the consumer to 
> make 
> sense of them.

I agree with your gut feeling. But it is bad for OSM's data quality
if we cannot state what frame of reference was used for addressing. If
one mapper uses strict postal addressing (unreliable for navigation),
and another uses physical addressing (not matching the postal
addresses), and we cannot tell the difference from the OSM tagging, then
we are presenting our data consumers with a challenge, in the same way
that having maxspeed=N without explicit or implicit units would cause
problems. Even in the UK speed limits in km/h are used on many rail/tram
systems...___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 21:00, Colin Smale  wrote:

Royal Mail do not say the Post Town is optional. RM also know of localities
> and dependent localities, which may or may not bear any resemblance to an
> inhabitant's perception of where they live.
>

Yeah, that's what they say.  But only house name/number and postcode are
required to uniquely identify a deliverable address.  Royal Mail strongly
suggest
you include the other stuff as belt and braces.

>
> [...]
>
>
> Postal counties have been deprecated for years, but are still in many
> people's minds. Metropolitan counties are no longer "administrative".
> Traditional counties maybe? But almost certainly not administrative
> counties.
>

Try buying something online.  They want a county.  And quite possibly only
let you
choose a county that no longer exists (except as a ceremonial county) such
as Dyfed
rather than the county you're actually in, such as Ceredigion.

>
>
> So if I am now more explicit about my intention to help this discussion
> towards a conclusion.
>

Actually, you sorta hijacked a discussion about whether to put the address
on a
building or a nearby gatepost.  This discussion is probably needed too.

What an address refers to, is different in the UK compared to other
> countries. We will never find a single model to fit the whole world that is
> not abstracted to the point that it becomes useless. Let's stop chasing our
> tails, and accept that.
>

Already have.  Long ago.  Not sure that what we have, even in the UK, is
entirely
fit for purpose because I have several examples in my own town alone that
don't fit
that model.  These are, to some extent, country-specific editor preset
issues: figure
out what works in a given country and persuade the people maintaining the
editors to
adopt it.  Yes, I'm simplifying a lot (again).

>
> Back to the philosophical question: Is a normal "address" in OSM: a) for
> delivering letters, or b) for navigation, or c) an identifier of a
> building/premises, or d) something else?
>

The philosophical question is actually should we limit/prohibit any of
those uses?  I
think not.  We can't force any mapper to add all of the info, but we ought
not to prevent
them from doing so.

Should/could we cater for these different definitions of "address", e.g. by
> having tags like addr:{address_type}:{address_element}? This is a question
> that IMHO is probably best addressed at global level; then let each country
> have its own model within that framework.
>

Gut feeling, without any real analysis, is we don't have address_type, we
just have
address_elements.  Because in one country address_element X may be a
critical
component of address_type A but in another country it's a critical
component of
address_type B.  Just have address elements and it's up to the consumer to
make
sense of them.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-01-07 21:14, Paul Allen wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:42, Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
>> I'm glad you said "probably", because it is of course not always true. And 
>> these edge cases are what we need to accommodate. Limiting the discussion to 
>> just handling the easy cases is cheating.
> 
> I know it's not true because I've had to deal with some of these oddities. 
> Sometimes we can have a scheme that handles oddities in its stride without 
> imposing unnecessary difficulties on the normal cases.  I haven't seen 
> anybody 
> suggest anything like that (yet) for addresses.  But I still think we should 
> optimize 
> for the common case and not optimize for the abnormal case.  Make the easy 
> things 
> easy and the hard things possible rather than make everything hard.

Optimisation should be phase two. First define a model that works, then
optimise. Ignoring the edge cases just delays the pain. We are long past
the point of handling the simple cases. 

>> Bit of a philosophical question: What is an address? In the UK, the Post 
>> Town and Postcode are for the purposes of delivering mail. If they happen to 
>> be useful to other parties, that's great, but it is only a side-effect.
> 
> Post town is actually the opposite of useful.  People put the post town in 
> their address 
> rather than their nearest named locality which makes it hard to find them 
> when looking 
> at a printed map.  Actual nearest locality is far more useful whether looking 
> at a 
> printed map or making a nominatim query.  Post Town is no longer necessary 
> even for 
> delivering mail, it's just a historic artefact that serves no useful purpose 
> any more.

Royal Mail do not say the Post Town is optional. RM also know of
localities and dependent localities, which may or may not bear any
resemblance to an inhabitant's perception of where they live. 

[...] 

>> Administrative boundaries are not relevant in UK addressing, unlike many 
>> European countries (I know about NL, DE, BE, FR) where "places" have defined 
>> boundaries.
> 
> Administrative boundaries are not usually relevant but are often given and 
> often 
> required when filling in forms.  They sometimes are relevant; there are 
> several 
> localities called Tarbert (sounds like a Dilbert character) in Scotland and 
> without a 
> postcode you need a county to figure out which one is which.  There are other 
> places 
> in the UK where the county is needed to disambiguate, and even some where you 
> need 
> more than just the county.

Postal counties have been deprecated for years, but are still in many
people's minds. Metropolitan counties are no longer "administrative".
Traditional counties maybe? But almost certainly not administrative
counties. 

>> The relationship between buildings and postcodes is N:M. If we replace the 
>> word "building" with "premises" and saying that an address refers to a 
>> "premises" may get us a bit closer, given that a "premises" may consist of 
>> part of a building, a  whole building, multiple buildings or any combination 
>> thereof.
> 
> I simplified, a little.  For anything that has a postal address in the UK, 
> the building(s) 
> number or name, plus the postcode, uniquely identifies it for the purposes of 
> postal 
> deliveries.  But the other stuff can be useful for other purposes.

So if I am now more explicit about my intention to help this discussion
towards a conclusion. What an address refers to, is different in the
UK compared to other countries. We will never find a single model to fit
the whole world that is not abstracted to the point that it becomes
useless. Let's stop chasing our tails, and accept that. 

Back to the philosophical question: Is a normal "address" in OSM: a) for
delivering letters, or b) for navigation, or c) an identifier of a
building/premises, or d) something else? Should/could we cater for these
different definitions of "address", e.g. by having tags like
addr:{address_type}:{address_element}? This is a question that IMHO is
probably best addressed at global level; then let each country have its
own model within that framework.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:42, Colin Smale  wrote:

I'm glad you said "probably", because it is of course not always true. And
> these edge cases are what we need to accommodate. Limiting the discussion
> to just handling the easy cases is cheating.
>

I know it's not true because I've had to deal with some of these oddities.
Sometimes we can have a scheme that handles oddities in its stride without
imposing unnecessary difficulties on the normal cases.  I haven't seen
anybody
suggest anything like that (yet) for addresses.  But I still think we
should optimize
for the common case and not optimize for the abnormal case.  Make the easy
things
easy and the hard things possible rather than make everything hard.

>
> Bit of a philosophical question: What is an address? In the UK, the Post
> Town and Postcode are for the purposes of delivering mail. If they happen
> to be useful to other parties, that's great, but it is only a side-effect.
>

Post town is actually the opposite of useful.  People put the post town in
their address
rather than their nearest named locality which makes it hard to find them
when looking
at a printed map.  Actual nearest locality is far more useful whether
looking at a
printed map or making a nominatim query.  Post Town is no longer necessary
even for
delivering mail, it's just a historic artefact that serves no useful
purpose any more.


> The street name, plus house number/name, are more directly addressed at
> members of the public trying to find the property in question.
>

Street name is more useful than postcode in actually going to an address
unless
you're using a satnav (and then it depends on the size of the postcode
area, location
of the address relative to the postcode centre, etc.)  But a lot of rural
roads
around here don't have names (they may once have had, but they have faded
from
memory/use).  Sometimes house name/number and postcode are all you have.

Administrative boundaries are not relevant in UK addressing, unlike many
> European countries (I know about NL, DE, BE, FR) where "places" have
> defined boundaries.
>

Administrative boundaries are not usually relevant but are often given and
often
required when filling in forms.  They sometimes are relevant; there are
several
localities called Tarbert (sounds like a Dilbert character) in Scotland and
without a
postcode you need a county to figure out which one is which.  There are
other places
in the UK where the county is needed to disambiguate, and even some where
you need
more than just the county.

>
> The relationship between buildings and postcodes is N:M. If we replace the
> word "building" with "premises" and saying that an address refers to a
> "premises" may get us a bit closer, given that a "premises" may consist of
> part of a building, a  whole building, multiple buildings or any
> combination thereof.
>

I simplified, a little.  For anything that has a postal address in the UK,
the building(s)
number or name, plus the postcode, uniquely identifies it for the purposes
of postal
deliveries.  But the other stuff can be useful for other purposes.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-01-07 20:04, Paul Allen wrote:

>> But why do we need to have the full street address on the building at all?
> 
> To identify it.  In the UK, house number or name, plus postcode is sufficient 
> to 
> uniquely identify it.  People, however, still find other information useful.  
> Such as 
> the address being 7 Foo Street means it's probably accessible by Foo Street.

I'm glad you said "probably", because it is of course not always true.
And these edge cases are what we need to accommodate. Limiting the
discussion to just handling the easy cases is cheating. 

Bit of a philosophical question: What is an address? In the UK, the Post
Town and Postcode are for the purposes of delivering mail. If they
happen to be useful to other parties, that's great, but it is only a
side-effect. The street name, plus house number/name, are more directly
addressed at members of the public trying to find the property in
question. Administrative boundaries are not relevant in UK addressing,
unlike many European countries (I know about NL, DE, BE, FR) where
"places" have defined boundaries. 

The relationship between buildings and postcodes is N:M. If we replace
the word "building" with "premises" and saying that an address refers to
a "premises" may get us a bit closer, given that a "premises" may
consist of part of a building, a  whole building, multiple buildings or
any combination thereof.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 07/01/2020 17:18, Paul Allen wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:51, Volker Schmidt  wrote:


May I come back to the navigation aspect.
Let's assume I have a single square building aligned with the compass
directions. It is between two parallel East<>West roads. It is placed
closer to the road on the North side.
Its entrance is on the South side from the road to the South. There is a
fence around the plot that stretches all the way from one road to the
other. The access is by a gate in the fence to the South. No footpath or
driveway is on the map. With other words, a quite frequent situation in
OSM. If I put the house number on the building the navigation device brings
me to a point close to the house on the North road, where there is no
entrance. If I place the number on a node close to where the gate is on the
South road, then the navigation device brings me to the desired place. But
I have no information about the association between the number on the gate
and the building.


Not frequent where I am, but it happens.  Map the fence, the gate, and the
path from the road to the front door.


This. ^

Bodging a tagging schema or adding spurious objects to cover the fact 
other objects are missing, makes no logical sense. Just add those 
missing objects. In this instance it greatly increases door to door 
routing accuracy & improves database quality overall. It often turns out 
to be less time consuming than fudging it.


DaveF


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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 18:05, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> I don't see misplacing nodes as being a good alternative to getting the
>> routeing right.
>>
>
> At least in the context of the legal requirements in Italy, I am not
> suggesting to misplace a node. I suggest to put it where the house number
> has to be (in Italy), i.e. on the entrance from the public road.
>

I think that interpretation conflates two separate issues: the address of a
building
and the placement of the house number.  We do not conflate road junctions
with
nodes marking the signs for road junctions (which some people do not map
anyway).  It is the building that has an address, not the sign.  The sign
is an
indication of the address.  The fact that Italy demands a specific
placement of the
sign doesn't really matter because if you know where the building is and
have roads
(and possibly drives/footpaths) mapped then you can figure out where the
sign is
going to be (but for multiple properties behind a single gate the reverse
is not
true).

>
> Regarding adding the (private) footpath or driveway from the gate to the
> house, I did not expect a routing algorithm to be so intelligent that when
> routing by car it also takes into consideration additional bits at the end
> that are private and/or pedestrian. But I am not a routing expert, may the
> AI has done wonders there as well.
>

Google certainly manages it, and can give you a route which involves buses
and
walking.  In any case, in urban areas (at least in the UK) residential
streets usually
have names: if a house address is 7 Foo Street then it's almost certain
that it is
reached by going to Foo Street, even if the placement of the house on the
lot puts
it nearer to Bar Street.  I would definitely expect a routeing algorithm to
take account
of street names, where present, even if it ignores driveways/footpaths (but
why
would it, since they're still ways?).

Yes, there are some weird exceptions near me.  Rare exceptions.  The UK
seems to conserve postal addresses even if road widening and re-routeing
means those addresses are misleading.

But why do we need to have the full street address on the building at all?
>

To identify it.  In the UK, house number or name, plus postcode is
sufficient to
uniquely identify it.  People, however, still find other information
useful.  Such as
the address being 7 Foo Street means it's probably accessible by Foo Street.

The rest is more for completeness and acting as a reverse gazetteer; that's
the
building, what's the full address?  It's useful, so I add street name and
town even
though house name/number and postcode is all that's strictly necessary.

Oh, and it may also help disambiguate nominatim queries if somebody knows
house
number, street name and town but not the postcode.

Nervertheless I admit that there will certainly be cases where we need some
> way of tying together the point where the navigation device finds the
> address and the buidling where the people live whom you have come to visit
> to have a cup of tea. A site relation ?
>

I would say that mapping driveways/footpaths is adequate for both humans and
routeing algorithms.  In many cases we don't even need that much: named
streets
give all the information needed.  Maybe, in exceptional cases, but as a
default
thing for every building in Italy it seems excessive (especially as some
mappers are
scared by relations).

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Rob Savoye]

On 1/7/20 11:02 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Nervertheless I admit that there will certainly be cases where we
> need some way of tying together the point where the navigation device
> finds the address and the buidling where the people live whom you
> have come to visit to have a cup of tea. A site relation ?

  My experiments with routing apply mostly to OsmAnd and what's in the
PBF files it uses. I dug pretty deeply into this recently while adding
OSM support to CadPage so we could use it for dispatch. All they need to
start navigation is the current location, and the GPS coordinates of the
destination. There is an option at that time to route on highways marked
private, ie... long driveways. If the footpath to the house is in OSM,
it'll take you all the way there. That's assuming all your highway data
is good, all highways=* actually connect, relations are good, etc...
Good navigation has been critical for our new fire fighters being able
to find anything efficiently. Beats using a 3 inch thick paper mapbook
like we used to... Which hadn't been updated in 17 years either.

  It of course gets the location of the destination by looking it up
using 'addr:street' and addr'housenumber'. Everything else like
'addr:full' is ignored. Sometimes it'll limit the search to the nearest
decent sized boundary, like a city.

- rob -
-- 
https://www.senecass.com

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Volker Schmidt]

>
> I don't see misplacing nodes as being a good alternative to getting the
> routeing right.
>

At least in the context of the legal requirements in Italy, I am not
suggesting to misplace a node. I suggest to put it where the house number
has to be (in Italy), i.e. on the entrance from the public road.

Regarding adding the (private) footpath or driveway from the gate to the
house, I did not expect a routing algorithm to be so intelligent that when
routing by car it also takes into consideration additional bits at the end
that are private and/or pedestrian. But I am not a routing expert, may the
AI has done wonders there as well.
But why do we need to have the full street address on the building at all?
OK, I am leaving aside a number of variants, like separate entrances for
cars and pedestrians, even though In that case my choice would be to put
the number where the door bell is.

Nervertheless I admit that there will certainly be cases where we need some
way of tying together the point where the navigation device finds the
address and the buidling where the people live whom you have come to visit
to have a cup of tea. A site relation ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:51, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> May I come back to the navigation aspect.
> Let's assume I have a single square building aligned with the compass
> directions. It is between two parallel East<>West roads. It is placed
> closer to the road on the North side.
> Its entrance is on the South side from the road to the South. There is a
> fence around the plot that stretches all the way from one road to the
> other. The access is by a gate in the fence to the South. No footpath or
> driveway is on the map. With other words, a quite frequent situation in
> OSM. If I put the house number on the building the navigation device brings
> me to a point close to the house on the North road, where there is no
> entrance. If I place the number on a node close to where the gate is on the
> South road, then the navigation device brings me to the desired place. But
> I have no information about the association between the number on the gate
> and the building.
>

Not frequent where I am, but it happens.  Map the fence, the gate, and the
path
from the road to the front door.  A decent routeing algorithm will send a
self-driving
car to the right place.  Alert humans can interpret what they see on the
map.

Not perfect, because a disturbing number of holiday cottages around here
feel it
necessary to warn people that if they enter the postcode into their satnav
they'll
end up in the wrong place.

>
> If you think this through we need a means to connect logically the
> number-bearing entrance to the house it belongs to,
>

That's what a driveway or footpath is for.

IF we want to have the number-building association as information in the
> map. But do we need this information at all? Is it not enough to know that
> we have to go the gate with the house number, if we want to go to the house
> with that number. How I have to move on the property to get from the gate
> to the house is not (necessarily) information that is on the map.
>

Your solution works unless there is more than one property sharing that
same gateway
or driveway.  My solution works either way, at the expense of sometimes
having to
map a fence and driveway/footpath you otherwise might not.

I don't see misplacing nodes as being a good alternative to getting the
routeing right.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Volker Schmidt]

May I come back to the navigation aspect.
Let's assume I have a single square building aligned with the compass
directions. It is between two parallel East<>West roads. It is placed
closer to the road on the North side.
Its entrance is on the South side from the road to the South. There is a
fence around the plot that stretches all the way from one road to the
other. The access is by a gate in the fence to the South. No footpath or
driveway is on the map. With other words, a quite frequent situation in
OSM. If I put the house number on the building the navigation device brings
me to a point close to the house on the North road, where there is no
entrance. If I place the number on a node close to where the gate is on the
South road, then the navigation device brings me to the desired place. But
I have no information about the association between the number on the gate
and the building.

If you think this through we need a means to connect logically the
number-bearing entrance to the house it belongs to, IF we want to have the
number-building association as information in the map. But do we need this
information at all? Is it not enough to know that we have to go the gate
with the house number, if we want to go to the house with that number. How
I have to move on the property to get from the gate to the house is not
(necessarily) information that is on the map.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:07, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

What I meant: we put address tags on objects (e.g. shops, restaurants,
> museums, cinemas, etc.)
>

I put addresses on private houses too.  I think you probably covered them
with your
"etc." but I thought I'd make it clear.

and this is usually (in my area) the address that the feature uses (can
> also be something like housenumber 3-5 or 39;41;43, is often just a single
> number although you could reach the feature sometimes through multiple
> numbers).
>
> I have a couple of cases something like that.  They are rare exceptions.
A terrace of
houses with a communal entrance - I don't know how the building is divided,
so 1-12 on
the whole building.  A large building with 41 dwellings on three levels,
several entrances
but without a closer survey I don't know which entrance leads where, so
1-41 on the
whole building.  In that, very exceptional case, it might be useful to put
addresses on
entrances (except it's possible all entrances interconnect via corridors).
I have no
problem with exceptional tagging to handle exceptional circumstances but I
find it
perverse to use exceptional tagging in the general case just so that
tagging is uniform.

Map is still not complete, but while some houses do have housenumbers,
> others only have entrances with letters (those with internal access) and
> housenumbers on the gates that lead into the block.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/365208412#map=18/41.86367/12.48903
>
> So somebody who lives in a house with a number on the gate but not on the
house
itself never gives his house address?  Claims his house does not have a
number?
Cannot insure his house because he cannot give a number for it?  If the
police go there
to arrest him they have to wait at the gate?

When I moved to my current house, it was a new build and I was the first
tenant.
None of the 8 houses on the development had numbers on them: the landlord
had
not fitted numbers and it was up to the tenants to do so.  Some of my
neighbours
didn't have a number on their house for 5 years.  There was no sign at the
start of
the cul-de-sac saying what house numbers were there, or even the name of the
development.  I didn't start mapping until years all of my neighbours
finally put
numbers on their houses, and yet those houses had addresses all that time
even
if they didn't display them and, had I been mapping back then, I'd have put
addresses
on the buildings.  On the theory of "put the address where the label is,
not where the
building is" I'd have been unable to put any address anywhere because there
were no
numbers displayed anywhere.  Even if there had been a sign at the entrance
to the
cul-de-sac saying what numbers it led to, it would have been unhelpful to
map the
addresses as being where that sign was.

Consider towns (and even villages and hamlets).  In the UK, most of them
have
signs on the most important roads to and/or through them at the outskirts.
"Welcome
to Foo" or "You are now entering Bar" (or, for hamlets, just "Fubar") or
whatever.  We
have had many disputes on how to place a node for a locality (centroid,
cultural centre,
business centre, etc.) but it would be downright perverse to place a
locality node at
every sign on the outskirts of the locality.  Yet this is what some suggest
is the correct
thing to do for houses/buildings.  The sign is not the thing, and the
position of the sign
is not the position of the thing.  We understand that principle for road
junctions and their
associated signage...

Take this example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08513=-4.65456#map=19/52.08513/-4.65456
It is the remnant of an old farm, the farmhouse and some farm buildings,
where most
of the original farmland was sold for the expansion of the town.  Here is
the start of
its driveway:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08455=-4.65717#map=19/52.08455/-4.65717
The housename is shown at the entrance to the drive (it may or may not also
be on
the house itself).  Putting the address on the house itself allows it to be
distinguished
from the other buildings and the route to it can be determined by
inspection (on the map
or on the ground).  Putting the address at the start of the driveway
doesn't tell you which
of the buildings is the house.  Putting the address on both is confusing.

Yes, there are always going to be exceptions.  They should be handled in
exceptional ways.  We shouldn't be handling the non-exceptional things in
exceptional ways in order to be consistent with the way we handle the
exceptional things.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 7. Jan. 2020 um 02:06 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 00:57, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 7. Jan 2020, at 01:17, Paul Allen  wrote:
>> >
>> > The question is, are we mapping an address or the location of a house
>> name/number
>> > plate associated with the address?  I'd say the address.
>>
>> both, we are mapping both, using the same tags: housenumbers and
>> addresses
>>
>
> I'd say that mapping the same address both ways is confusing.
>
>


What I meant: we put address tags on objects (e.g. shops, restaurants,
museums, cinemas, etc.) and this is usually (in my area) the address that
the feature uses (can also be something like housenumber 3-5 or 39;41;43,
is often just a single number although you could reach the feature
sometimes through multiple numbers).
There can be multiple things/POIs with the same address (particularly if
you do not consider unit or door numbers).
The POIs can be nodes or areas.

Additionally, we map the housenumber (in our case nodes) where they apply
to (gates or entrance=* or barrier=entrance).

For completeness: Some Italian mappers prefer to add the POI on the
entrance, or do not add addresses to POIs, so that the address is used only
once, others prefer to add addressing to all POIs.




> I'd also say that, in an example that appeared here earlier, where several
> properties
> can be accessed by any of several gates, the correct way to handle it
> would not be
> to put addresses on gates but by footpaths or pedestrian areas or similar
> and apply
> the addresses to the buildings.
>


I disagree here. Here's a quarter with houses inside walled gardens (with
openings, i.e. still semi-public space, slowly transitioning to closed
gates and gentrification though)
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Garbatella_01646.JPG
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Garbatella2018camminandoconVisureAcatastali_24.jpg

Map is still not complete, but while some houses do have housenumbers,
others only have entrances with letters (those with internal access) and
housenumbers on the gates that lead into the block.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/365208412#map=18/41.86367/12.48903





>
> As I understand it, in some countries the emergency services use OSM.
> Knowing
> the building they can figure out which gate to use.  Knowing the gate may
> not tell
> them which of several buildings they need to get to.
>


usually the gate or entrance is more specific than a number for the whole
building. In exceptional cases like the above cited Garbatella, you will
need additionally a door in order to find the right building inside the
block

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:32 AM Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 18:23, Dave F via Tagging
>  wrote:
> > On 05/01/2020 18:37, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > > This depends on the country.
> > > It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Where does it say that? Where does it say it's forbidden to add address
> > data to building polygons in OSM?
>
> Of course nothing is truly forbidden in OSM as long as you are mapping
> in good faith ("any tags you like" spirit) but local community
> consensus can discourage some tagging schemes (such as separate ways
> for sidewalks in Germany) and this is likely what Marc had in mind
> when writing "forbidden" in quotation marks.

indeed, that's why I used quotation marks.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Marc Gemis]

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 7:21 PM Markus  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 19:39, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > This depends on the country.
> > It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
>
> Says who? And why?

The Danish community, as the address nodes were automatically
imported, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Denmark

Dave F wrote a longer explanation.

regards

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Rob Savoye]

On 1/6/20 6:04 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
> As I understand it, in some countries the emergency services use
> OSM. Knowing the building they can figure out which gate to use. 
> Knowing the gate may not tell them which of several buildings they
> need to get to.
  We use OSM for emergency response since Google has poor data in my
area. Since the OSM data here is now quite detailed and accurate, it
literally dropped our response time in half. All our fire trucks have a
10" tablet mounted on the dash that works as a dedicated mapping device.
Our district covers several hundred square kilometers of mostly obscure
dirt roads left from the mining era.

> Then again, as long as people don't force me to put addresses at the
> end of driveways, I'm not going to put much effort into arguing the
> point.
  I think there is confusion as to a real building's address sign, which
may be at the end of the driveway, but in an OSM file, the address node
should be on the building. Or part of the building way's tags.

- rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 07/01/2020 00:30, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

Hi,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Denmark and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Adresser seem like a good place
to start.


Hi Jarek
Yes I had read the first link previously.


Of course nothing is truly forbidden in OSM as long as you are mapping
in good faith ("any tags you like" spirit) but local community
consensus can discourage some tagging schemes (such as separate ways
for sidewalks in Germany) and this is likely what Marc had in mind
when writing "forbidden" in quotation marks.


Again, no valid reason has been given by other local community as to why 
addresses can't be added to buildings to make the data useful. Being 
unable to create software to check buildings for addresses is not a 
valid argument.


Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 00:57, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 7. Jan 2020, at 01:17, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > The question is, are we mapping an address or the location of a house
> name/number
> > plate associated with the address?  I'd say the address.
>
> both, we are mapping both, using the same tags: housenumbers and addresses
>

I'd say that mapping the same address both ways is confusing.

I'd also say that, in an example that appeared here earlier, where several
properties
can be accessed by any of several gates, the correct way to handle it would
not be
to put addresses on gates but by footpaths or pedestrian areas or similar
and apply
the addresses to the buildings.

As I understand it, in some countries the emergency services use OSM.
Knowing
the building they can figure out which gate to use.  Knowing the gate may
not tell
them which of several buildings they need to get to.

Then again, as long as people don't force me to put addresses at the end of
driveways, I'm not going to put much effort into arguing the point.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Jan 2020, at 01:17, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> The question is, are we mapping an address or the location of a house 
> name/number
> plate associated with the address?  I'd say the address.



both, we are mapping both, using the same tags: housenumbers and addresses 


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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Jan 2020, at 00:32, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> but can you show us rule where it says address data can't be added to 
> buildings if there's only one entrance?


this is also what I have been arguing for in Italy, use addr tags on the whole 
area when there’s only one number through which it is accessible.


> or do even individual domestic properties which have both front & back doors 
> have two postal addresses?


back doors don’t, but gates in the fence do, so often a property is accessible 
through several different numbers. Also windows may get numbers.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 18:23, Dave F via Tagging
 wrote:
> On 05/01/2020 18:37, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > This depends on the country.
> > It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
>
> Hi
>
> Where does it say that? Where does it say it's forbidden to add address
> data to building polygons in OSM?

Hi,

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Denmark and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Adresser seem like a good place
to start.

Of course nothing is truly forbidden in OSM as long as you are mapping
in good faith ("any tags you like" spirit) but local community
consensus can discourage some tagging schemes (such as separate ways
for sidewalks in Germany) and this is likely what Marc had in mind
when writing "forbidden" in quotation marks.

[...]
> This was provided by another user & I suspect is getting close to the
> real reason:
>
> "Transferring the data to buildings will mess up the maintenance"
>
> I asked JKHougaard why his bot couldn't be updated to check ways. "that
> is beyond my coding skills" was his reply.
>
> I may be wrong, but given the responses I can only conclude it's a smoke
> screen to cover up the limitations of the bot.

Local community consensus are a thing in OSM. If you disagree you can
of course try convincing the Danish mapper community that they've been
doing it wrong for 10 years.

BTW how would you map an address of a lot that currently has no building on it?

Cheers,
Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 23:56, Rob Savoye  wrote:

> On 1/6/20 4:38 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> > the buildings, where he can ring the bell. In many case this is not on
> > the building but on the entrance to the property.. I have a real case
>
>   Here that's very common. Physical address signs are on the end of the
> driveway where they can be seen. Course many driveways around here are
> long, and you can't see the house from the road.
>

There are a few of each type near me.  House at the end of a long drive,
can't
be seen from the road, house name is marked at entrance to driveway.  Block
of apartments with an entry gate with buzzers.

I am not convinced marking the location of the house name number, rather
than the house itself, is useful.  The people with the long drive live in
the house,
not at the entrance to the drive.  They don't have a letterbox at the end
of the drive,
but even if they did the address belongs to the house.  Yes, delivery
people would
have to stop at the entrance gate to the block of flats, but that would be
apparent
from inspection of the map or on arrival at the place.

The question is, are we mapping an address or the location of a house
name/number
plate associated with the address?  I'd say the address.

Consider a long driveway shared between several houses.  Letterboxes at the
start
of the driveway, and that's where the house names/numbers are marked.  If
you're
delivering a pizza, you need to know which house to go to after going along
the drive.

For many purposes, marking the location of the sign, rather than the actual
building,
seems to me to be perverse.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Rob Savoye]

On 1/6/20 4:38 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:

> the buildings, where he can ring the bell. In many case this is not on
> the building but on the entrance to the property.. I have a real case

  Here that's very common. Physical address signs are on the end of the
driveway where they can be seen. Course many driveways around here are
long, and you can't see the house from the road.

- rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Volker Schmidt]

I would assume that the routing/navigation argument is a valid one. The
delivery van wants to stop as close as possible to the real entrance  of
the buildings, where he can ring the bell. In many case this is not on the
building but on the entrance to the property.. I have a real case
nearby (Mapillary
image ).
This entrance gate has the house number 20, and  the people live in the
condominiums that are partially visible behind. Below the number-20 plate
are the door bells and to the left the letter boxes. It is at this gate
where the delivery van has to stop to ting the door bell.

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 00:25, Dave F via Tagging 
wrote:

> On 05/01/2020 18:37, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > This depends on the country.
> > It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
>
> Hi
>
> Where does it say that? Where does it say it's forbidden to add address
> data to building polygons in OSM?
>
> Keeping address data separate from buildings (which contain the primary
> tags) reduces the usefulness of the data. It prevents mail-sort
> compilations for residential houses. or locating all hairdressers in
> Randers.
>
>
> Recently, I asked a few people, including JKHougaard,  the creator of
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/autoAWS, but the all failed to confirm.
>
> He gave this as an explanation:
>
> "The reason we treat addresses in Denmark nodes is because that is how
> an address is legally defined here."
>
>   However, he failed to say how this Danish opendata licence prevents it
> from being transferred to buildings within OSM
>
> This was given to me by another user as justification:
>
> "The house number in the address shall refer to the exterior entrance
> door or similar to a building or part of a building which the address
> identifies." https://w2l.dk/file/661441/The_Danish_Adress_act.pdf
>
> But that says nothing about it relating to OSM
>
> This was provided by another user & I suspect is getting close to the
> real reason:
>
> "Transferring the data to buildings will mess up the maintenance"
>
> I asked JKHougaard why his bot couldn't be updated to check ways. "that
> is beyond my coding skills" was his reply.
>
> I may be wrong, but given the responses I can only conclude it's a smoke
> screen to cover up the limitations of the bot.
>
> DaveF
>
>
> ___
> 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] addresses on buildings

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 06/01/2020 21:55, Volker Schmidt wrote:

This depends on the country.

It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,

A similar rule exist in Italy: the number has to be put where the actual
entrance is,


Well, this is slightly better than floating nodes as in Denmark, but can 
you show us rule where it says address data can't be added to buildings 
if there's only one entrance? or do even individual domestic properties 
which have both front & back doors have two postal addresses?


Cheers
DaveF



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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.01.2020 um 22:55 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
>
>
>
> > This depends on the country.
> > It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
>
> A similar rule exist in Italy: the number has to be put where the
> actual entrance is, as the number identifies an entrance and not a
> building.
> Thai also helps navigation devices to get you to the actual entrance
> and not only near the building.
> But this is Italy-specific.

Switzerland is similar (the national address dataset is a bit hit and
miss if the location is actually usable, but that's life).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 05/01/2020 18:37, Marc Gemis wrote:

This depends on the country.
It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,


Hi

Where does it say that? Where does it say it's forbidden to add address 
data to building polygons in OSM?


Keeping address data separate from buildings (which contain the primary 
tags) reduces the usefulness of the data. It prevents mail-sort 
compilations for residential houses. or locating all hairdressers in 
Randers.



Recently, I asked a few people, including JKHougaard,  the creator of 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/autoAWS, but the all failed to confirm.


He gave this as an explanation:

"The reason we treat addresses in Denmark nodes is because that is how 
an address is legally defined here."


 However, he failed to say how this Danish opendata licence prevents it 
from being transferred to buildings within OSM


This was given to me by another user as justification:

"The house number in the address shall refer to the exterior entrance 
door or similar to a building or part of a building which the address 
identifies." https://w2l.dk/file/661441/The_Danish_Adress_act.pdf


But that says nothing about it relating to OSM

This was provided by another user & I suspect is getting close to the 
real reason:


"Transferring the data to buildings will mess up the maintenance"

I asked JKHougaard why his bot couldn't be updated to check ways. "that 
is beyond my coding skills" was his reply.


I may be wrong, but given the responses I can only conclude it's a smoke 
screen to cover up the limitations of the bot.


DaveF


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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Volker Schmidt]

> This depends on the country.
> > It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
>
A similar rule exist in Italy: the number has to be put where the actual
entrance is, as the number identifies an entrance and not a building.
Thai also helps navigation devices to get you to the actual entrance and
not only near the building.
But this is Italy-specific.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Markus]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 19:39, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> This depends on the country.
> It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,

Says who? And why?

I agree with Martin and others: if every building has an own number,
it makes the most sense to tag it on the building=* way (also because
of inheritance to objects within), if entrances have their own
numbers, tag it on the entrance=* node.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 1/6/20 01:47, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Then there are buildings which is a single building with no seperation
> inbetween but multiple entrances with individual housenumbers. I
> use nodes on those.

I had a weird case locally (within walking distance of me) where one
business in a building had an address on a different street than the
other three. I could have maybe split the building outline but decided
to just use nodes instead.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 11:22:50AM -0700, Rob Savoye wrote:
>   I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
> 'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?

In Germany we have both. And it depends on what actually makes sense.

These are my thoughts and usage:

If you have HUGE Buildings i use a node with an address. Because
navigation goes to a single location and i want to specifiy the
exact location someone is sent to. And not some random location
calculated by an algorithm broken down from the outline.

Then there are buildings which is a single building with no seperation
inbetween but multiple entrances with individual housenumbers. I
use nodes on those.

All simple buildings e.g. individual residential detached houses
i put it on the outline.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Rob Savoye]

On 1/5/20 11:45 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

> In the US it can go either way. I've seen a shopping center where
> multiple buildings had the same address (number and street) but
> different ranges of suite/unit numbers.

  I can see both being appropriate. We have multiple old resorts with
one address, and several dozen cabins. Each cabin though is a building
way. When I got the official cabin names from the homeowners
association, I added that as nodes. I'd just like to do what's
appropriate. Mostly though I was wondering about a standalone rural
building. OsmAnd will dis[play the address either way, so it's a matter
of the metadata syntax.

- rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Tobias Knerr]

On 05.01.20 19:22, Rob Savoye wrote:
>   I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
> 'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?

If there is a 1:1 relationship between buildings and addresses, the
building way is the most sensible location for addr tags.

My subjective experience with unconnected address nodes is that I often
end up confused about which building outline(s) they were originally
meant to belong to.

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2020, at 19:24, Rob Savoye  wrote:
> 
>  I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
> 'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?


it depends where the number/address is assigned to, and may vary, e.g. in 
Germany it depends on the municipality, and sometimes numbers are assigned to 
sites, sometimes to buildings, and additionally they may be assigned to 
entrances, staircases etc. „as required“ (citation from Berlin law about 
housenumbers).
In Italy the numbers are assigned to entrances and gates. 
When you have good arguments for adding addresses to an area, it is preferable 
because it allows for inheritance to the enclosed/contained objects, otherwise 
you would have to repeat the addresses on all the objects inside (or use 
relations which is generally considered worse for this case).

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 1/5/20 12:37, Marc Gemis wrote:
> This depends on the country.
> It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
> It is not typical to do so in The Netherlands.
> In Italy, the address belongs to a door, not to a building.

In the US it can go either way. I've seen a shopping center where
multiple buildings had the same address (number and street) but
different ranges of suite/unit numbers.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Marc Gemis]

This depends on the country.
It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
It is not typical to do so in The Netherlands.
In Italy, the address belongs to a door, not to a building.

regards

m.

On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:24 PM Rob Savoye  wrote:
>
>   I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
> 'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?
>
> - rob -
> --
> https://www.senecass.com
>
> ___
> 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] addresses on buildings

[Rob Savoye]

  I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?

- rob -
-- 
https://www.senecass.com

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