Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
Anthony: Ugh, another point: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_ Categories Putting all the elements which have addresses referencing a street into a relation seems to me to violate that principle. No. There is a relation between the houses and the street. You don't need addr:street on the houses if you have it on the relation. You could argue that putting all the ways that make up a street into a single street relation is also just using a relation as a category if you think that of associatedStreet, in which case the answer to the subject of this thread is none of them. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
On 19.08.2010 01:05, John F. Eldredge wrote: When you say process a nearby-search for the street name, how broadly is nearby interpreted? ...it depends ;) At first: Of course you're right. Nashville, TN, USA, where I live, has a number of instances of streets that were split by later construction. For example, McGavock Pike extends both north and south of the airport; the airport construction replaced the middle portion of the street, resulting in a gap of about three miles between the two sections. Also, since the city's expansion caused it to swallow up a number of smaller communities, there are some duplicate street names that have to be distinguished between by the postal code (referred to as the Zip Code). I also know of at least one case where a street number occurs more than once on the same long street, but with different postal codes and, originally, different town names (the road in question was originally the highway connecting the two small towns). Let's distinct two use cases: 1) I search for a house in a database. For that I only need the address-information of the house, allowing full search, leading to the node or polygon. - should be clear. 2) I want to get a route to a particular address. That't a little more difficult, and here the association to the street is needed. I want to distinct further: 2.a) The address is - as often the case in urban countries, nearby the street and there is no other street with the same name around - the simple approach would be enough described earlier. 2.b) The house is far away from the street and the address-information is not enough to determine the associated OSM-way. In that cases - especially when the house is several hundrets of meters away from the street I prefer to add a driveway (highway=service) or footpath to the house's entrance, as the house is found independent of the street (compare use case 1); the navigation should prefer to navigate directly to the target's object. Additionally at least in Germany a street does not have a postal code, but each address has. A street can be summarized to have a particular postal code, as that's the usual description (1-22 Main Street: postal code: 12345), but there are even streets not having a postal code where no house is attached. regards Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Anthony: Ugh, another point: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_ Categories Putting all the elements which have addresses referencing a street into a relation seems to me to violate that principle. No. There is a relation between the houses and the street. You don't need addr:street on the houses if you have it on the relation. You could argue that putting all the ways that make up a street into a single street relation is also just using a relation as a category if you think that of associatedStreet, in which case the answer to the subject of this thread is none of them. Moved to the tagging list. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
Anthony osm at inbox.org writes: So I prefer to add the street name to the street (as name) and addr:street to the building/shop etc. I think for now that's probably the best solution. And just hope there aren't too many instances of Main Street on the addr vs. Main St on the way. And do some sort of nearby search. Unfortunately, that means I can't do a simple SQL query to find out what street has the most addresses on it in the OSM database. OTOH, I could probably come up with a fairly simple SQL query to answer How many addresses are there on Broad Street in Philadelphia, especially if I'm willing to approximate Philadelphia as a rectangle. Something like this might work with data imported with osm2pgsql select count(*) from osm_polygon opoly, osm_line oline where oline.highway is not null and opoly.building is not null and oline.name=opoly.addr:street and [distance from street to buildings is less than x meters]; However, the distance query is not very simple for the whole world data, see http://postgis.refractions.net/ pipermail/postgis-users/2009-February/022648.html There is no need to approximate Philadelphia as a rectangle, you can use the whole geometry in spatial intersects filter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
Ulf wrote: I just had a look at http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Planet/En/top_undocumented_relation s.html and both relations area apparently ±equally used. Can't help answering your question, Ulf, but in what way is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet undocumented? I know JOSM validator plugin doesn't know about it, but I ignore those warnings... Does it need its own page rather than a redirect? Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: and both relations area apparently ±equally used. True, it's not two but three relations proposals for the same purpose: collection, street and associatedStreet Althoughcollection is not limited to streets, it's also proposing street addresses members... Since associatedStreet was historicaly the first proposal including house numbers and is the most popular according to Tagwatch, I would suggest to deprecate the street proposal and remove streets from the collection proposal. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
However, associatedStreet is maybe not the most obvious choice for joining, say, the segments of a motorway; at least I thought, associatedStreet would be used for associating single ways (street segments) with waypoints (symbolising addresses along the street segment) only. In addition (being, however, no native speaker of English), using associatedStreet for a collection of ways sounds strange to me. ... and then there is also the tag relatedStreet -- what's that? :-) On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 14:10 +0200, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: and both relations area apparently ±equally used. True, it's not two but three relations proposals for the same purpose: collection, street and associatedStreet Althoughcollection is not limited to streets, it's also proposing street addresses members... Since associatedStreet was historicaly the first proposal including house numbers and is the most popular according to Tagwatch, I would suggest to deprecate the street proposal and remove streets from the collection proposal. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Ulf Mehlig ulf.meh...@gmx.net -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
They both (street and collection) have problems. type=street is the best type. role=member (or no role) would be the best role. On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Since associatedStreet was historicaly the first proposal including house numbers and is the most popular according to Tagwatch, I would suggest to deprecate the street proposal and remove streets from the collection proposal. According to the wiki, associatedStreet only allows one occurrence of the street role, and that member has to be a way. So should we allow associatedStreet include a street relation under the street role, or should we allow it to contain multiple ways? Given the name, probably the former. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
Also I think the notion of general inheritance should be abandoned. A tag should be on the street relation only if it applies to the street as a whole, and not to the individual ways which make up the relation. IOW, name is fine. oneway=yes, for a dual carriageway, wouldn't be (even though the individual ways are all oneway, the street is not). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
Ugh, another point: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories Putting all the elements which have addresses referencing a street into a relation seems to me to violate that principle. What's needed is a way to put a reference to the street into the way for the building, not a way to put a reference to the building into the way for the street. One possibility is to just use addr:street=way:37863 or addr:street=relation:28917. But as there would be no maintenance of referential integrity, that wouldn't be without its dangers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
Ulf Mehlig wrote: ... and then there is also the tag relatedStreet -- what's that? :-) relatedStreet was the term used by the AddrInterpolation JOSM-plugin before the associatedStreet proposal was created. It is equivalent to associatedStreet and now obsolete. Sebastian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: According to the wiki, associatedStreet only allows one occurrence of the street role, Which is the main difference with the proposal 'street'. But this can be changed. It doesn't disturb existing relations and again, we could deprecate the relation 'street' (the other member is 'everything that belongs to a street' which sounds like the dirty is_in). and that member has to be a way. So should we allow associatedStreet include a street relation under the street role, or should we allow it to contain multiple ways? Given the name, probably the former. because the name is singular ? is it a good reason to use relations of relations when we know how difficult it is to edit ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: According to the wiki, associatedStreet only allows one occurrence of the street role, Which is the main difference with the proposal 'street'. But this can be changed. But changing it is probably a bad idea. Do we really want a relation with 500 ways representing the street and 50,000 nodes representing the buildings? After rereading http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories I'm going to conclude that the proper place to put address information is in the building data, not in the street data, and that associatedStreet should therefore be deprecated. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: But changing it is probably a bad idea. Do we really want a relation with 500 ways representing the street and 50,000 nodes representing the buildings? wow, 500 ways and 50,000 addresses just for one street ! Show me the map ! After rereading http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories I'm going to conclude that the proper place to put address information is in the building data, not in the street data, and that associatedStreet should therefore be deprecated. And if you read more on the wiki, you will discover that the Karlsruhe schema is allowing both. Here we speak only about the contributors who selected the solution with a relation. Nobody force you to use it but let others clean-up the relations proposals. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: But changing it is probably a bad idea. Do we really want a relation with 500 ways representing the street and 50,000 nodes representing the buildings? wow, 500 ways and 50,000 addresses just for one street ! Show me the map ! What would you say is the maximum number of ways/addresses for one street? After rereading http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories I'm going to conclude that the proper place to put address information is in the building data, not in the street data, and that associatedStreet should therefore be deprecated. And if you read more on the wiki, you will discover that the Karlsruhe schema is allowing both. I've read that. And what I'm saying is that it should only allow one. Grouping relations really only make sense if the grouping is neither geographical (as discussed above) nor exclusive (like the HSBC example - the cash machine is unlikely to be operated by two different institutions at the same time). The associatedStreet relation is exclusive. There is only one associated street for any address. The street relation, on the other hand, is not exclusive. There are ways (e.g. in intersections) which are part of multiple streets. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
At 2010-08-18 10:39, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: But changing it is probably a bad idea. Do we really want a relation with 500 ways representing the street and 50,000 nodes representing the buildings? wow, 500 ways and 50,000 addresses just for one street ! Show me the map ! Not unreasonable, FWIW. CA-138 in CA is a ~170 km (~106 mi) primary surface road through mostly rural and some suburban area. It currently has 48 ways, but I'm working on processing a survey I did, which will probably break it into many pieces because of turn restrictions, speed/weight limits, etc. If addressing were added to it, I'd guess 10-200 address points per mile (you do the math). Foothill Blvd (CA-66) is a little shorter, but through well-developed areas with many more breaks in jurisdiction (and therefore restriction changes), not to mention far denser in terms of address points. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: After rereading http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories I'm going to conclude that the proper place to put address information is in the building data, not in the street data, and that associatedStreet should therefore be deprecated. I'm not sure... for me adresss information are connected to street not building, let me explain. An adress give you the opportunity to find you way to where you want to go (8th Adam Street). Connecting the address to the building let you know where is the building not from where to go there ; some situation are complex and you don't know from what street you can go to this particular building. Connecting to the street can make routing software easy to build the route to go from your location to the adress and it will go the right route (because the adress is on th street) and avoid mistake by routing you the the back of the building (you then have to take other streets to go to the entrance). Of cours connecting to the street dont indicate the building exactly. For me connecting the the street is better for routing and postal adress (find the postbox); connecting to building is more precise in therm of location but less useful... -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
On Wednesday 18 August 2010 19:25:22 Pieren wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: According to the wiki, associatedStreet only allows one occurrence of the street role, Which is the main difference with the proposal 'street'. But this can be changed. We've had about this same discussion on the Dutch forum not too long ago. There was a nation wide building import. The JOSM terracer-plugin is now used to add adresses to these. So there are a lot of associatedStreet relations created. The plugin allows you to put more than one way into an associatedStreet relation. Our conclusion was also that the requirement of only one way in an associatedStreet relation is not practically maintainable. If someone splits a way that just happens to be part of an associatedStreet relation, then he isn't going to move one part of the way and some of the adresses to a new relation, if he is just adding speed limits or routes or -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
On 18.08.2010 19:21, Anthony wrote: put a reference to the street into the way for the building, not a way to put a reference to the building into the way for the street. One possibility is to just use addr:street=way:37863 or addr:street=relation:28917. But as there would be no maintenance of referential integrity, that wouldn't be without its dangers. Isn't addr:street=Main Street enough? pro's: - to search for a house, only searching through local tags (of nodes or areas describing buildings/housenumbers) is enough. - to search for the associated street of the house process a nearby-search for the street-name, as the same streetname usually doesn't appear twice in a city - maintaining is easy as changing ways for the street don't care. Navigation systems should IMHO do some preprocessing to the data - means e.g. connecting houses to nodes at the street for routing. con's: references in attributes are error prone, I fear. 1) some people reuse old ways when editing (should not be, but is often the case) 2) deletions, edits and additions would break the relation, if not maintained carefully, what's a lot of work. So I prefer to add the street name to the street (as name) and addr:street to the building/shop etc. regards Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
When you say process a nearby-search for the street name, how broadly is nearby interpreted? Nashville, TN, USA, where I live, has a number of instances of streets that were split by later construction. For example, McGavock Pike extends both north and south of the airport; the airport construction replaced the middle portion of the street, resulting in a gap of about three miles between the two sections. Also, since the city's expansion caused it to swallow up a number of smaller communities, there are some duplicate street names that have to be distinguished between by the postal code (referred to as the Zip Code). I also know of at least one case where a street number occurs more than once on the same long street, but with different postal codes and, originally, different town names (the road in question was originally the highway connecting the two small towns). ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use? From :mailto:wendo...@uni-paderborn.de Date :Wed Aug 18 17:36:58 America/Chicago 2010 On 18.08.2010 19:21, Anthony wrote: put a reference to the street into the way for the building, not a way to put a reference to the building into the way for the street. One possibility is to just use addr:street=way:37863 or addr:street=relation:28917. But as there would be no maintenance of referential integrity, that wouldn't be without its dangers. Isn't addr:street=Main Street enough? pro's: - to search for a house, only searching through local tags (of nodes or areas describing buildings/housenumbers) is enough. - to search for the associated street of the house process a nearby-search for the street-name, as the same streetname usually doesn't appear twice in a city - maintaining is easy as changing ways for the street don't care. Navigation systems should IMHO do some preprocessing to the data - means e.g. connecting houses to nodes at the street for routing. con's: references in attributes are error prone, I fear. 1) some people reuse old ways when editing (should not be, but is often the case) 2) deletions, edits and additions would break the relation, if not maintained carefully, what's a lot of work. So I prefer to add the street name to the street (as name) and addr:street to the building/shop etc. regards Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: On 18.08.2010 19:21, Anthony wrote: put a reference to the street into the way for the building, not a way to put a reference to the building into the way for the street. One possibility is to just use addr:street=way:37863 or addr:street=relation:28917. But as there would be no maintenance of referential integrity, that wouldn't be without its dangers. Isn't addr:street=Main Street enough? It'd be nice to have an easy way to link the address to the street. Navigation systems should IMHO do some preprocessing to the data - means e.g. connecting houses to nodes at the street for routing. I disagree. The street address isn't always the same as the street used for access. references in attributes are error prone, I fear. 1) some people reuse old ways when editing (should not be, but is often the case) 2) deletions, edits and additions would break the relation, if not maintained carefully, what's a lot of work. Yes, hence my comment about referential integrity. addr:streetref=way:87323 would be a hack. You'd really want something built into the API for it to work right. So I prefer to add the street name to the street (as name) and addr:street to the building/shop etc. I think for now that's probably the best solution. And just hope there aren't too many instances of Main Street on the addr vs. Main St on the way. And do some sort of nearby search. Unfortunately, that means I can't do a simple SQL query to find out what street has the most addresses on it in the OSM database. OTOH, I could probably come up with a fairly simple SQL query to answer How many addresses are there on Broad Street in Philadelphia, especially if I'm willing to approximate Philadelphia as a rectangle. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: Isn't addr:street=Main Street enough? It'd be nice to have an easy way to link the address to the street. Oh yeah, another advantage (though this is more useful for street names than it is for addresses) is that you can add extra details to the street name which would be tedious to repeat over and over again. For instance, you could add a pronunciation transcription so that text-to-speech apps can read the name of the street. It'd be much better to link to a place with the name of the street and the pronunciation transcription than it would be to copy the pronunciation transcription to every instance of the street name. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
