[OSM-talk-be] associatedStreet
Hi, I'm wondering if I used the associatedStreet relation correctly: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481807/history I put all the common addr:-tags on the relation. Is that OK? Do the buildings still need an addr:street tag? I can't seem to find this information in the wiki. Jo ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] associatedStreet
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Jo wrote: > Hi, > > I'm wondering if I used the associatedStreet relation correctly: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481807/history > > I put all the common addr:-tags on the relation. Is that OK? > > Do the buildings still need an addr:street tag? > > I can't seem to find this information in the wiki. > > Jo > The wiki information is at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema#Using_relations_to_associate_house_and_street_.28optional.29 In theory, you don't need to tag the buildings with the addr:street tag if you use the relation. Tim ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] associatedStreet
I also tagged a more complicated one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481829/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481828/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481830/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481831/history I guess it can't be helped that several relations are needed? Jo ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] associatedStreet
Funnily enough we've just been having a similar discussion on the talk-gb list. As it currently stands, JOSM complains if more than one "street" member is included in the relation. However, there are people who are just ignoring this and adding all relevant highways for the particular street (i.e. all those with the same name) as "street" members. There are others who mentioned that maybe the highways that make up the street be in one relation, and then that relation is the "street" member in the associatedStreet relation. No decision has been made on the talk-gb list on this. Hope this helps, Tim On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jo wrote: > I also tagged a more complicated one: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481829/history > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481828/history > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481830/history > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1481831/history > > I guess it can't be helped that several relations are needed? > > Jo > > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] associatedStreet
I don't really mind using nested relations, but some people seem to be very much opposed to it. That said, I love this relatedStreet relation, as it takes away a lot of duplication of data. Of course, then it seems a bit counterproductive to still have the duplication of data on the relation level. And it is indeed because JOSM complained about more than one street role, that I created 4 relations. The relation combining the street parts, what type would that one be then? Jo ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] associatedStreet
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jo wrote: > I don't really mind using nested relations, but some people seem to be very > much opposed to it. > > That said, I love this relatedStreet relation, as it takes away a lot of > duplication of data. Of course, then it seems a bit counterproductive to > still have the duplication of data on the relation level. And it is indeed > because JOSM complained about more than one street role, that I created 4 > relations. > > The relation combining the street parts, what type would that one be then? > > Jo > Can't remember that one, but I can point you to the relevant thread in talk-gb for you to read through: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-March/thread.html#11135 Tim ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
