[OSM-talk-be] Newbie : Huis vatten - adressen - UrbIS
Je reviens sur le message de Jo et sur la situation avec l'import UrbIS. Nous avons différentes situations : 1. contour (way) avec une adresse unique (c'est à dire un numéro) : l'adresse est sur le contour (way) 2. contour (way) avec plusieurs adresses dans l'import : plusieurs nodes qui ont chacun une adresse qui est sur les nodes et les nodes sont à l'intérieur du way 3. building à l'angle de deux rues avec dans l'import plusieurs numéros sur des nodes : un ou plusieurs numéro + adresse dans chaque rue ; voir Proposed Features/Multiple addresseshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses, avec, par exemple *addr:1*:street=Foo Street, *addr:1*:housenumber=1, * addr:2*:street=Bar Road, *addr:2*:housenumber=5. Les nodes sont aussi à l'intérieur du way. 4. building à l'angle de deux rues avec lors de l'import un seul numéro sur le contour mais sur le terrain (in situ) on observe des adresses dans les deux rues : le schéma ci-dessus reste applicable (numéro et adresse sur le way). Pierre P. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Newbie : Huis vatten - adressen - UrbIS
2013/10/21 Pierre Parmentier pierrecparment...@gmail.com Proposed Features/Multiple addresseshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses I don't like this proposal too much. This is a relation in disguise. So why not use a real relation instead ? A building relation (which already exists) with multiple address node members. -- I know it's not your proposal, so I won't shoot the messenger :-) This is a mess to maintain if you have to manually make sure that all numbers behind a addr: are there. I would vote against it. m. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Newbie : Huis vatten - adressen - UrbIS
And I'm not the only one: see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses none of the comments was in favor of this proposal. On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/21 Pierre Parmentier pierrecparment...@gmail.com Proposed Features/Multiple addresseshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses I don't like this proposal too much. This is a relation in disguise. So why not use a real relation instead ? A building relation (which already exists) with multiple address node members. -- I know it's not your proposal, so I won't shoot the messenger :-) This is a mess to maintain if you have to manually make sure that all numbers behind a addr: are there. I would vote against it. m. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Newbie : Huis vatten - adressen - UrbIS
We should stick to the current well known scheme, thinking about this renderer issue... it makes no sense to manoevre around a faulty renderer, being it nominatim or a tileserver. If a search for a street + housenumber, city returns nothing, but a search for that same street, city without the number does return fine, who's fault is that? Search engines are suppose to be 'best effort' . The correct behavior should be to drop the housenumber from the search parameters (no exact match is found), and then lower the resolution of the result set to encompass the street (visually). In nominatim that would translate to bunch of hits when searching for an address, when reverse searching for a coordinate that would just return : streetname , postalcode, city, country no housenumber. That proposal ,I mentioned that in a earlier comment already, (to be aware of it's existance) but it's flawed as you noticed. Also, there are 203 occurences in the whole database like this: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr%3A1%3Ahousenumber Safe to say, it would be a lost effort following this scheme. But also, we would be the only ones using it imho We should just keep tagging the karlsruhe way. Glenn On 2013-10-21 14:40, Marc Gemis wrote: And I'm not the only one: see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses none of the comments was in favor of this proposal. On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/21 Pierre Parmentier pierrecparment...@gmail.com mailto:pierrecparment...@gmail.com # Proposed Features/Multiple addresses http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses I don't like this proposal too much. This is a relation in disguise. So why not use a real relation instead ? A building relation (which already exists) with multiple address node members. -- I know it's not your proposal, so I won't shoot the messenger :-) This is a mess to maintain if you have to manually make sure that all numbers behind a addr: are there. I would vote against it. m. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
