Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Paul Johnson wrote:


On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:44:00 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:


Do paper maps include the directional prefix or postfix?  I looked at a
few maps of Washington DC and not one of them I saw include the quadrant
suffix.


I've yet to find a Portland map that didn't include them on all streets,
even when it's obvious what part of town (like 5 miles south of Burnside,
three miles east of the Willamette River).


Yeah.

So basically my point in asking the question is that the reinforce, that 
while the directionals are certainly important, they should be other ways 
to convey the information.


However, for now, important directionals like those used in Portland and 
Washington DC, should be kept as part of the name.  I really think they 
should remain abbreviated, but the forces that be will insist that 
everything is expanded, no matter what.  I can understand their reasons, 
but I think there should be some exceptions.


For now, I am focusing on separating out directionals which are _not_ 
really needed.  A full breakout might help solve the problem for when they 
are needed, but that is more involved than a simple separation of the

prefix.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:44:00 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:

> Do paper maps include the directional prefix or postfix?  I looked at a
> few maps of Washington DC and not one of them I saw include the quadrant
> suffix.

I've yet to find a Portland map that didn't include them on all streets, 
even when it's obvious what part of town (like 5 miles south of Burnside, 
three miles east of the Willamette River).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

It sounds to me like they should probably be seperated out, but I don't 
live in the area so I don't want to make the final call.


Do you live in the area?  It sounds like you do.  If you are still not 
sure try asking other people in the area and see what they think.


On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Nathan Edgars II wrote:


On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Kevin Atkinson  wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alan Mintz wrote:

So, the remaining questions are:

- When you look at official records, like assessor's and tract maps, is it
called "South Westmoreland Dr"?


Seems like they sometimes include the prefic and sometimes not.


- If someone is giving you directions, do they say "Go west on West 26th
Street, then south on South Westmoreland Drive."?


Doubtful. You might hear it for a few of the most major roads (like
Orange Avenue and Colonial Drive, which go across the county), but
otherwise no prefix. You also might say East Colonial or South Orange
when talking about a location, essentially as shorthand for which side
of downtown it's on. But you probably wouldn't for the more minor
roads, even if they do cross the zero line.


- It does appear that 2500 N Westmoreland Dr and 2500 S Westmoreland Dr
are separate addresses in Orlando, according to USPS
(http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp). However, no prefixes are used for
addresses on 26th St, despite the presence on the sign.


I think you forgot the most import test:  Can the Intersection of 26th
Street and Westmoreland Drive only be one possible location on the map? That
is, lets assume all streets extend indefinitely.  Can Westmoreland Drive
intersect with East 26th Street, what about 26th street intersecting with
North Westmoreland Drive.  In my view the intersection test should be given
the most weight,  it is a concrete test the distinguishes prefixes used
mainly as part of the address and prefixes (and suffixes) which identify a
region of the city.  If there where two roughly parallel 26th Streets (or
Westmoreland Drives) than the above test will fail.


The numbered streets are only in an area from 18th to 45th south of
downtown, so there's no chance of confusion. There are streets that
loop around and intersect others twice, but prefixes won't solve that
problem.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Kevin Atkinson  wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alan Mintz wrote:
>> So, the remaining questions are:
>>
>> - When you look at official records, like assessor's and tract maps, is it
>> called "South Westmoreland Dr"?

Seems like they sometimes include the prefic and sometimes not.
>>
>> - If someone is giving you directions, do they say "Go west on West 26th
>> Street, then south on South Westmoreland Drive."?

Doubtful. You might hear it for a few of the most major roads (like
Orange Avenue and Colonial Drive, which go across the county), but
otherwise no prefix. You also might say East Colonial or South Orange
when talking about a location, essentially as shorthand for which side
of downtown it's on. But you probably wouldn't for the more minor
roads, even if they do cross the zero line.
>>
>> - It does appear that 2500 N Westmoreland Dr and 2500 S Westmoreland Dr
>> are separate addresses in Orlando, according to USPS
>> (http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp). However, no prefixes are used for
>> addresses on 26th St, despite the presence on the sign.
>
> I think you forgot the most import test:  Can the Intersection of 26th
> Street and Westmoreland Drive only be one possible location on the map? That
> is, lets assume all streets extend indefinitely.  Can Westmoreland Drive
> intersect with East 26th Street, what about 26th street intersecting with
> North Westmoreland Drive.  In my view the intersection test should be given
> the most weight,  it is a concrete test the distinguishes prefixes used
> mainly as part of the address and prefixes (and suffixes) which identify a
> region of the city.  If there where two roughly parallel 26th Streets (or
> Westmoreland Drives) than the above test will fail.

The numbered streets are only in an area from 18th to 45th south of
downtown, so there's no chance of confusion. There are streets that
loop around and intersect others twice, but prefixes won't solve that
problem.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alan Mintz wrote:


At 2010-08-17 18:44, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Dale Puch  wrote:
> Is it really not part of the street name, what are the rules you use to
> determine it is only part of the address?

In Orlando the city and county ground-mounted street signs have a
square at the end for the address block. The directional prefix, if
present, also appears there.
Example on what TIGER calls South Westmoreland Drive:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.51,-81.392877&spn=0.015404,0.041199&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.515547,-81.393042&panoid=FgoBLwm7V3KHZOXf7Oklcw&cbp=12,122.26,,1,-0.48


This looks like what I described as:

- They are not in front of the name on the street signs. If anywhere, they 
are in a smaller font, after the address starting



So, the remaining questions are:

- When you look at official records, like assessor's and tract maps, is it 
called "South Westmoreland Dr"?


- If someone is giving you directions, do they say "Go west on West 26th 
Street, then south on South Westmoreland Drive."?


- It does appear that 2500 N Westmoreland Dr and 2500 S Westmoreland Dr are 
separate addresses in Orlando, according to USPS 
(http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp). However, no prefixes are used for 
addresses on 26th St, despite the presence on the sign.


I think you forgot the most import test:  Can the Intersection of 26th 
Street and Westmoreland Drive only be one possible location on the map? 
That is, lets assume all streets extend indefinitely.  Can Westmoreland Drive 
intersect with East 26th Street, what about 26th street intersecting with 
North Westmoreland Drive.  In my view the intersection test should be 
given the most weight,  it is a concrete test the distinguishes prefixes 
used mainly as part of the address and prefixes (and suffixes) which identify a 
region of the city.  If there where two roughly parallel 26th Streets (or 
Westmoreland Drives) than the above test will fail.


My guess is that this is a place where the prefixes should be moved out of 
the name tag, but this should be left up to a local.


I agree with both points.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-08-17 18:44, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Dale Puch  wrote:
> Is it really not part of the street name, what are the rules you use to
> determine it is only part of the address?

In Orlando the city and county ground-mounted street signs have a
square at the end for the address block. The directional prefix, if
present, also appears there.
Example on what TIGER calls South Westmoreland Drive:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.51,-81.392877&spn=0.015404,0.041199&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.515547,-81.393042&panoid=FgoBLwm7V3KHZOXf7Oklcw&cbp=12,122.26,,1,-0.48


This looks like what I described as:

- They are not in front of the name on the street signs. If anywhere, they 
are in a smaller font, after the address starting



So, the remaining questions are:

- When you look at official records, like assessor's and tract maps, is it 
called "South Westmoreland Dr"?


- If someone is giving you directions, do they say "Go west on West 26th 
Street, then south on South Westmoreland Drive."?


- It does appear that 2500 N Westmoreland Dr and 2500 S Westmoreland Dr are 
separate addresses in Orlando, according to USPS 
(http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp). However, no prefixes are used for 
addresses on 26th St, despite the presence on the sign.


My guess is that this is a place where the prefixes should be moved out of 
the name tag, but this should be left up to a local.


--
Alan Mintz 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Dale Puch  wrote:
> Is it really not part of the street name, what are the rules you use to
> determine it is only part of the address?

In Orlando the city and county ground-mounted street signs have a
square at the end for the address block. The directional prefix, if
present, also appears there.
Example on what TIGER calls South Westmoreland Drive:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.51,-81.392877&spn=0.015404,0.041199&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.515547,-81.393042&panoid=FgoBLwm7V3KHZOXf7Oklcw&cbp=12,122.26,,1,-0.48

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Anthony]

> At 2010-08-17 12:52, Dale Puch wrote:
> Because your losing information.
> If your separating the elements to different tags...  if truly not part of
> the name, it can be used for part of the address instead of street.
> Is it really not part of the street name, what are the rules you use to
> determine it is only part of the address?

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Alan Mintz
 wrote:
> It requires local knowledge, but as soon as the debate settles down, I will
> be moving these prefixes out of the name tag and into an agreed upon
> direction tag in places where I know it to be correct to do so, based on
> local knowledge and the above-cited sources.

Exactly.  This is gaining information, not losing it.

(Now if only I could convince people to put street names on a street
relation, and not on the ways...)

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Katie Filbert]

For addresses, we have the various pieces split up, such as
addr:housenumber, addr:street.

For streets, how about something like this:

* name =  S Main St (common name, whatever appropriate for the locale; in
this example locale, it's not usual to include the suffix; in other locales
it should be included.)
* name:prefix = South
* name:street = Main
* name:type = Street
* name:suffix = SW

The name tag could be useful with the default OSM map rendering.

The other tags that break up the name would be useful for computer
processing and alternative uses and renderings of OSM data.

This could also address another issue I'm seeing... bots and people going
around and changing the street names in Washington DC to spell out the
suffix: NW -> Northwest, thus the name renders fully like "Stephenson Place
Northwest" or whatever the name.

It's cool to have the full name there, but the rendering is messy.  I would
prefer Stephenson Pl NW, which is how street signs do it here, or perhaps
Stephenson Place NW.  No one ever spells out NW -> Northwest in the street
names here.

As for including NW or not in the main name tag, I would for DC and it's
fine to have it render. I absolutely don't want to impose this way of doing
things that's appropriate for DC upon other cities and locales.  Do what
makes sense for you.

With breaking up the pieces of the street name and not having a single
"name" tag, it may be possible to have things both ways.

-Katie

-- 
Katie Filbert
filbe...@gmail.com
@filbertkm
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-08-17 12:52, Dale Puch wrote:

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:19 AM,
Kevin Atkinson

wrote:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Dale Puch wrote:

The directional prefix/suffix absolutely should not be dropped from
any
streets.  Even ones that are simple straight lines that change
N/S or E/W at
a point along it.  Treat them as 2 different streets.


1) Why?
2) Do you live in an area that uses directional prefixes that
way?

Because your losing information.
If your separating the elements to different tags...  if truly not
part of the name, it can be used for part of the address instead of
street.
Is it really not part of the street name, what are the rules you use to
determine it is only part of the address?
This has been answered a number of times in this thread. You must live in
a place where these directional prefixes are part of the name. In most of
southern California, for example, they are clearly not.
- They are not in front of the name on the street signs. If anywhere,
they are in a smaller font, after the address starting number or range,
further reinforcing the fact that they are address information, not part
of the name.
- They are not in the official records - not assessor's maps, tract maps,
parcel maps, records of survey, etc.
- They are not used in verbally communicating the names of streets by
locals.
- In some cities, and some parts of some cities, they are not even part
of the address, according to USPS.
They are only present in the name tags of roads that came from the TIGER
import because TIGER incorrectly made no distinction between the field
that was imported to tiger:name_direction_prefix, and then prepended to
name, being part of the name, or instead being address
information.
It requires local knowledge, but as soon as the debate settles down, I
will be moving these prefixes out of the name tag and into an agreed upon
direction tag in places where I know it to be correct to do so, based on
local knowledge and the above-cited sources.

--
Alan Mintz 



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Dale Puch wrote:


On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Kevin Atkinson wrote:


On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Dale Puch wrote:

 The directional prefix/suffix absolutely should not be dropped from any

streets.  Even ones that are simple straight lines that change N/S or E/W
at
a point along it.  Treat them as 2 different streets.



1) Why?



Because your losing information.


I am not advocating complete removal.  Just separating into another tag.


If your separating the elements to different tags...  if truly not part of
the name, it can be used for part of the address instead of street.
Is it really not part of the street name, what are the rules you use to
determine it is only part of the address?


I thought I already made those clear.  But here they are:

1) The directional prefix is not needed when giving the intersection of 
two streets.  That is dropping the prefix will not lead to an ambiguous 
situation that could possible identify more the one location in the city.


2) The directional prefix is generally not on the signs.

3) The street prefix is generally not given when identifying a street 
(without given an address) by locals, in the news, etc.


The first one must apply, the second one should apply two, but what cities 
chose to put on the street signs is not always consistent so there are 
some cases where exceptions should be made.  Finally the third criteria 
should only be made by someone who has lived in the area.  Thus ultimately 
this should be a local decision.


In the case of Salt Lake City, all three criteria apply.  Thus the 
directional prefix should not be part of the street name for the area, but 
should be stored in a seperate tag to prevent the lose of information.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Dale Puch]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Kevin Atkinson wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Dale Puch wrote:
>
>  The directional prefix/suffix absolutely should not be dropped from any
>> streets.  Even ones that are simple straight lines that change N/S or E/W
>> at
>> a point along it.  Treat them as 2 different streets.
>>
>
> 1) Why?
>
> 2) Do you live in an area that uses directional prefixes that way?
>
>
Because your losing information.
If your separating the elements to different tags...  if truly not part of
the name, it can be used for part of the address instead of street.
Is it really not part of the street name, what are the rules you use to
determine it is only part of the address?


-- 
Dale Puch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Dale Puch wrote:


The directional prefix/suffix absolutely should not be dropped from any
streets.  Even ones that are simple straight lines that change N/S or E/W at
a point along it.  Treat them as 2 different streets.


1) Why?

2) Do you live in an area that uses directional prefixes that way?


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Anthony]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Dale Puch  wrote:
> Well, personally there is what is, what should be, and what is practical.
>
> The directional prefix/suffix absolutely should not be dropped from any
> streets.  Even ones that are simple straight lines that change N/S or E/W at
> a point along it.  Treat them as 2 different streets.
>
> What to abbreviate...  nothing in the database.  Let the renders ect. decide
> what to or not to.

I don't understand that.  If the name of the street is "Dale Mabry
Highway" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Mabry_Highway), we should
tag the name as "Dale Mabry Highway".  Not "North Dale Mabry Highway"
and "South Dale Mabry Highway".

> The database would be much better with the address broken into well defined
> parts.

Fine, add a separate key for the address.  The name of the highway is
"Dale Mabry Highway", not "North Dale Mabry Highway".  The *address*
is "North Dale Mabry Highway", but the address is not the same as the
name of the road.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Dale Puch]

Well, personally there is what is, what should be, and what is practical.

The directional prefix/suffix absolutely should not be dropped from any
streets.  Even ones that are simple straight lines that change N/S or E/W at
a point along it.  Treat them as 2 different streets.

What to abbreviate...  nothing in the database.  Let the renders ect. decide
what to or not to.

The database would be much better with the address broken into well defined
parts.  Ideally without the current name tag, and always build the full
name.  I doubt this would work well for data entry by OSM users though.
Unabreviated directional prefix/suffix, type, and the base/remaining name
might be palatable though.  Anything that will not fit nicely into the extra
tags just goes in the base name tag.  In fact, keep using the current name
tag.

Dale


On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Kevin Atkinson wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Steven Johnson wrote:
>
>  If you want to see the mother of all street naming trainwrecks, have a
>> look
>> at Hickory, NC. Story goes that sometime back in the '30's, the city
>> fathers/mothers thought they would rationalize street naming. But what
>> makes
>> sense on gridded streets makes an *awful* mnemonic device for wayfinding,
>> especially in the hilly, western piedmont of NC. You also have some really
>> perverse examples of streetnaming, like "19th Ave Pl NW".
>>
>
> Thanks for the other data point.  In case I didn't make it already clear in
> my other emails, what I am saying is that maybe always displaying the
> directionals is not always the best way to present them.  I do not know what
> the correct solution is.  However, I am not advocating the complete
> suppression except in limited cases.  For example, when the directional is
> more of a positive/negative for an address than specifying a region of the
> city, such as the case in Salt Lake City.  The decision to suppress
> directionals in this limited case should be evaluated on a city by city
> bases and by those who are familiar with the area.
>
>
>  Rather than look to paper maps and Google for how they map it, it may be
>> more useful to look at how local E911 services and USPS treat these
>> addresses.
>>
>
> That is not going to help, what is at issue here (at least for me) is what
> should be displayed as part of the street name of a map.  Not what goes into
> the address.
>
>
>  There are times when a street type (e.g. Ave, St, Ln, Pl) is part
>> of the name (e.g. 19th Ave Pl NW, where "Ave" is part of the street name)
>> and times when the directional prefix/suffix (e.g. N, S, E W) are part of
>> the street name (e.g. "North Temple"). I think only local knowledge is the
>> way to resolve these issues.
>>
>
> Yes local knowledge is the only way to resolve it.
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Steven Johnson wrote:


If you want to see the mother of all street naming trainwrecks, have a look
at Hickory, NC. Story goes that sometime back in the '30's, the city
fathers/mothers thought they would rationalize street naming. But what makes
sense on gridded streets makes an *awful* mnemonic device for wayfinding,
especially in the hilly, western piedmont of NC. You also have some really
perverse examples of streetnaming, like "19th Ave Pl NW".


Thanks for the other data point.  In case I didn't make it already clear 
in my other emails, what I am saying is that maybe always displaying the 
directionals is not always the best way to present them.  I do not know 
what the correct solution is.  However, I am not advocating the complete 
suppression except in limited cases.  For example, when the directional is 
more of a positive/negative for an address than specifying a region of the 
city, such as the case in Salt Lake City.  The decision to suppress 
directionals in this limited case should be evaluated on a city by city 
bases and by those who are familiar with the area.



Rather than look to paper maps and Google for how they map it, it may be
more useful to look at how local E911 services and USPS treat these
addresses.


That is not going to help, what is at issue here (at least for me) is what 
should be displayed as part of the street name of a map.  Not what goes 
into the address.



There are times when a street type (e.g. Ave, St, Ln, Pl) is part
of the name (e.g. 19th Ave Pl NW, where "Ave" is part of the street name)
and times when the directional prefix/suffix (e.g. N, S, E W) are part of
the street name (e.g. "North Temple"). I think only local knowledge is the
way to resolve these issues.


Yes local knowledge is the only way to resolve it.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Steven Johnson]

If you want to see the mother of all street naming trainwrecks, have a look
at Hickory, NC. Story goes that sometime back in the '30's, the city
fathers/mothers thought they would rationalize street naming. But what makes
sense on gridded streets makes an *awful* mnemonic device for wayfinding,
especially in the hilly, western piedmont of NC. You also have some really
perverse examples of streetnaming, like "19th Ave Pl NW".

Rather than look to paper maps and Google for how they map it, it may be
more useful to look at how local E911 services and USPS treat these
addresses. There are times when a street type (e.g. Ave, St, Ln, Pl) is part
of the name (e.g. 19th Ave Pl NW, where "Ave" is part of the street name)
and times when the directional prefix/suffix (e.g. N, S, E W) are part of
the street name (e.g. "North Temple"). I think only local knowledge is the
way to resolve these issues.

SEJ

"Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans." -Empedocles



On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 16:55, Richard Welty  wrote:

>  On 8/13/10 1:27 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe Oregon's just weird, but that *IS* the way our streets are.  "NW"
>> is a fundamental part of the street name.
>>
> ditto for St Pete Florida, without the N/S/NE/SE directionals, you're lost.
> they're pretty fundamental. the avenues number north and south from
> Central Avenue:
>
>
> 5th Avenue N
> 4th Avenue N
> 3rd Avenue N
> 2nd Avenue N
> 1st Avenue N
> Central Avenue
> 1st Avenue S
> 2nd Avenue S
> 3rd Avenue S
> 4th Avenue S
> 5th Avenue S
>
> the N and S labeled versions  are completely different, parallel
> streets.if you suppress the directionals, you are losing critical
> information.
>
> richard
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Richard Welty]

 On 8/13/10 1:27 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:


Maybe Oregon's just weird, but that *IS* the way our streets are.  "NW"
is a fundamental part of the street name.

ditto for St Pete Florida, without the N/S/NE/SE directionals, you're lost.
they're pretty fundamental. the avenues number north and south from
Central Avenue:


5th Avenue N
4th Avenue N
3rd Avenue N
2nd Avenue N
1st Avenue N
Central Avenue
1st Avenue S
2nd Avenue S
3rd Avenue S
4th Avenue S
5th Avenue S

the N and S labeled versions  are completely different, parallel
streets.if you suppress the directionals, you are losing critical
information.

richard


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Brad Neuhauser wrote:


So, can we agree that in some areas the directionals *are* necessary
for display?  If not yet, in Minneapolis there are many more examples.
To wit, there are four separate roads that are 3rd Ave, each with a
different directional: N, S, NE, SE.  For a little Where's Waldo fun,
see if you can find 'em all! (abbreviated, of course):
http://osm.org/go/t...@fd4yc5--


Here is what I am saying:

1) If the directionals indicate a region of the city, the information 
needs to conveyed somehow.  This does not necessary mean that they need to 
be part of the street name.  If they are part of the street name they 
should probably be displayed in an abbreviated form.


2) If the directional are more part of an address, as I outlined in my 
other email, than they are probably best left off the map altogether. 
But this should be evaluated on a city by city bases.  Even if they are 
left off the map, they are needed for forming addresses so the information 
should be tagged somehow.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mike Thompson wrote:


On every single street?

Yep,  pretty much everyone that has a directional as part of its name,
which is a lot of them.


What map is this

It was published by "Color-Art, Inc., St Louis Mo." "2004-Edition"  I
am not claiming this is a super authoritative source, but it is one
counter example.


Okay, thanks for the verification of the source.


Maps that are created from
google or yahoo maps don't count.

I have no evidence that the map cited above was created from one of
these sources, by why do you say this?


Some times one off maps or just printing of some online generated maps. 
Your example clearly is not.



I have a paper map that doesn't.

I have another map that doesn't as well (for the most part).  This is
from a tourist booklet and I don't have any publication info as I just
saved the map.  I think in the case of DC (unlike SLC), it is a
cartographic choice.  I will check some of my photos from one of my
visits, but I think the streets signs in DC contain the quadrant
suffix (again, unlike SLC).


I googled it and they do.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Dave Hansen]

On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 11:11 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: 
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mike Thompson wrote:
> 
> >> Do paper maps include the directional prefix or postfix?  I looked at a few
> >> maps of Washington DC and not one of them I saw include the quadrant 
> >> suffix.
> >
> > I have a map of DC and it contains the quadrant suffixes.
> 
> On every single street?  What map is this.  Maps that are created from 
> google or yahoo maps don't count.
> 
> I have a paper map that doesn't.   Also look at 
> "http://www.google.com/images?q=washington dc map".  Notice how almost 
> none of those maps include the street suffixes.  Some display the quadrant 
> information, but not as a part of _every_ street.

How about this (Go zoom in on the 4th image).

http://www.amazon.com/Streetwise-Portland-Map-Laminated-Folding/dp/1886705518/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281720154&sr=8-1

Squinting at this:

http://www.amazon.com/Rand-McNally-Streets-Portland-Oregon/dp/0528867768/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281720154&sr=8-2

it looks the same

Or this:

http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Guide-2006-Portland-Oregon/dp/0528857142/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281720154&sr=8-5

you'll have to look at the random pages from the page view.

Maybe Oregon's just weird, but that *IS* the way our streets are.  "NW"
is a fundamental part of the street name.  It needs to be either drawn
on the street when rendering, or have some clear explanation on the map
of why not (like the keys showing Burnside and the Wilamette in
Portland).


-- Dave



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Mike Thompson]

> On every single street?
Yep,  pretty much everyone that has a directional as part of its name,
which is a lot of them.

>What map is this
It was published by "Color-Art, Inc., St Louis Mo." "2004-Edition"  I
am not claiming this is a super authoritative source, but it is one
counter example.

> Maps that are created from
> google or yahoo maps don't count.
I have no evidence that the map cited above was created from one of
these sources, by why do you say this?

> I have a paper map that doesn't.
I have another map that doesn't as well (for the most part).  This is
from a tourist booklet and I don't have any publication info as I just
saved the map.  I think in the case of DC (unlike SLC), it is a
cartographic choice.  I will check some of my photos from one of my
visits, but I think the streets signs in DC contain the quadrant
suffix (again, unlike SLC).

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Kevin Atkinson  wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>>> Do paper maps include the directional prefix or postfix?  I looked at a
>>> few
>>> maps of Washington DC and not one of them I saw include the quadrant
>>> suffix.
>>
>> I have a map of DC and it contains the quadrant suffixes.
>
> On every single street?  What map is this.  Maps that are created from
> google or yahoo maps don't count.
>
> I have a paper map that doesn't.   Also look at
> "http://www.google.com/images?q=washington dc map".  Notice how almost none
> of those maps include the street suffixes.  Some display the quadrant
> information, but not as a part of _every_ street.
>
>

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mike Thompson wrote:


Do paper maps include the directional prefix or postfix?  I looked at a few
maps of Washington DC and not one of them I saw include the quadrant suffix.


I have a map of DC and it contains the quadrant suffixes.


On every single street?  What map is this.  Maps that are created from 
google or yahoo maps don't count.


I have a paper map that doesn't.   Also look at 
"http://www.google.com/images?q=washington dc map".  Notice how almost 
none of those maps include the street suffixes.  Some display the quadrant 
information, but not as a part of _every_ street.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[David Fawcett]

I also think that it is important to think about the street
information as data as opposed to just what is necessary for display.
By storing a minimal number of address parts as separate attributes,
we can greatly increase the value of the data stored.  This will make
this data much more valuable for geocoding, navigation, etc.

David.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Brad Neuhauser
 wrote:
> So, can we agree that in some areas the directionals *are* necessary
> for display?  If not yet, in Minneapolis there are many more examples.
>  To wit, there are four separate roads that are 3rd Ave, each with a
> different directional: N, S, NE, SE.  For a little Where's Waldo fun,
> see if you can find 'em all! (abbreviated, of course):
> http://osm.org/go/t...@fd4yc5--
>
> Cheers, Brad
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>> Do paper maps include the directional prefix or postfix?  I looked at a few
>>> maps of Washington DC and not one of them I saw include the quadrant suffix.
>> I have a map of DC and it contains the quadrant suffixes.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Brad Neuhauser]

So, can we agree that in some areas the directionals *are* necessary
for display?  If not yet, in Minneapolis there are many more examples.
 To wit, there are four separate roads that are 3rd Ave, each with a
different directional: N, S, NE, SE.  For a little Where's Waldo fun,
see if you can find 'em all! (abbreviated, of course):
http://osm.org/go/t...@fd4yc5--

Cheers, Brad

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>> Do paper maps include the directional prefix or postfix?  I looked at a few
>> maps of Washington DC and not one of them I saw include the quadrant suffix.
> I have a map of DC and it contains the quadrant suffixes.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Mike Thompson]

> Do paper maps include the directional prefix or postfix?  I looked at a few
> maps of Washington DC and not one of them I saw include the quadrant suffix.
I have a map of DC and it contains the quadrant suffixes.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Alan Millar wrote:


I am currently on a road trip and today I am in Utah.  In the last hour
I just drove on  200 So.,  200 S.,  200 South,  No. Temple,  N. Temple,
and North Temple.  I also drove past 1400 West and "1465 W" without a
period.  And those were the city signs!  That doesn't include addresses
signed on buildings, which included several "West North Temple".  I did
not once see "W North Temple" or "W. North Temple" on any signs or
buildings.


Yes the signing is not entirely consistent.  But none of the official street 
signs includes the directional prefix.  It is just "North Temple", not 
"West North Temple".  This is why, for my area the directional prefix 
should not be part of the name.



So, no, I don't trust that mappers are going to remember abbreviation
rules only for limited definitions of subjectively-optional name parts,
when they disagree with city signs.  If OSM rules do disagree with
signs, they need to be simple and readily verifiable by others.


Okay, you made your point with the abbreviations.  I am not going to argue 
it any further.



For people who are new or can't figure it out, put the whole
unabbreviated name in the "name" tag.  Period.  For address nerds who
care, put the additional information in additional tags.

West North Temple needs to be tagged as:

name=West North Temple
name_dir_prefix=West
name_base=North Temple


As I just said not a _single_ street sign included the directional
prefix.  Therefore it should not be part of the name.  It is really
part of the address.

Alan, I just posted a description on the two different uses of directional 
prefixes.  Do you still really think the directional prefix, as used in 
Salt Lake City, _has_ to be part of the name?  Or are you willing to yield 
to someone who has lived in the area?



From there, you can do anything you could possibly want with the map

renderer(s), mkgmap, navit, or any other map data application, without
guessing or getting it wrong.


There are still many ways to get it wrong.  Abbreviations are not the only 
way street signs are inconsistent.




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Val Kartchner]

On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 14:54 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> I think that these components should be automatically separated by parsing 
> the street name some how, and only require manual entry when there is 
> ambiguity.  When there is ambiguity, I think just entering in the Street 
> Name (base type in tiger) will be enough.

However, the directional prefixes can't be automatically parsed out.
Just as some examples, from your home of Salt Lake City, there is North
Temple Street, South Temple Street and West Temple Street.  These are
the actual names.  A complete address would be something like 150 West
North Temple Street.

Further north, around Ogden, there are actually two streets named North
Street, one South Street, and (one I found today) a South Pointe Street.
There is also an East Crest and West Crest.  In each of these cases, the
seeming directional prefix is part of the street name and not a prefix.
One North Street could have East or West directional prefixes (for
addresses), but for various reasons the others wouldn't.

Names like "South 3300 West" could automatically be parsed.  There would
be other patterns that we could find that would always work.  There
would be many others that couldn't automatically be parsed.  We will
need a solution that is easy to enter.

What about using separators, like the standard semicolon.  Any names
without separators (and not an "always works" pattern) would need to be
manually reviewed.  So the above example would become
"South;3300;West;Street".  This separates out the parts of the street
name into, in this case, directional prefix, street name, directional
suffix, type of street.  They wouldn't need to be in any specific order
since there would only be a limited set of strings that could be in the
fields other than "street name".

Some of the other examples above would become "South Pointe;Street" and
"West;North Temple;Street".  These work because "South Point" isn't one
of the known fields like "South".  However, "North;Street" and
"South;Street" wouldn't work with this scheme, so we'll need something
beyond this simple idea.

Also, the renderers seem to be VERY slow at catching up to changes like
this.  (They're still arguing about how to handle route numbers
separated by semicolons.)  Would there be a way for a 'bot to monitor
street name changes and parse something like the above idea, separate it
into appropriate key/value pairs, then fix up the regular "name" field
to a standard format?  Then the 'bot could check other changes to a
"name" field and flag it for manual review.

Okay, shoot these ideas full of holes, just as long as we make progress.

- Val -


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Alan Millar wrote:


On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 13:57 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:

My main goal was to separate out the directional prefix because, which
while important for mailing, did not really belong as part of the street
name.  I thought I would take care of the suffix as well.


You may think it doesn't really belong as part of the street name, and
that may possibly be true in your neighborhood.  But in my neighborhood,
it definitely IS part of the street name and can't be left off, for
mailing or not.  In my part of the Portland area, SW Takena is a
completely separate unrelated street from NW Takena.  In Seattle, Forest
Ave S is completely separate and unrelated from Forest Ave SE.


Do paper maps include the directional prefix or postfix?  I looked at a 
few maps of Washington DC and not one of them I saw include the quadrant 
suffix.



So I disagree, it does belong as part of the street name.  If you have a
prefix or suffix that you think is optional, don't call it the
directional prefix or suffix that the rest of the country uses; we have
them for a reason.


See my other post for Salt Lake city in particular.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Richard Welty]

 On 8/12/10 11:09 PM, Alan Millar wrote:

On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 13:57 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:

My main goal was to separate out the directional prefix because, which
while important for mailing, did not really belong as part of the street
name.  I thought I would take care of the suffix as well.

You may think it doesn't really belong as part of the street name, and
that may possibly be true in your neighborhood.  But in my neighborhood,
it definitely IS part of the street name and can't be left off, for
mailing or not.  In my part of the Portland area, SW Takena is a
completely separate unrelated street from NW Takena.  In Seattle, Forest
Ave S is completely separate and unrelated from Forest Ave SE.

the same is true for St. Petersburg, Florida. 26th Avenue South is a
completely different street from 26th Avenue North.

richard


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Alan Millar]

On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 13:57 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> My main goal was to separate out the directional prefix because, which 
> while important for mailing, did not really belong as part of the street 
> name.  I thought I would take care of the suffix as well.

You may think it doesn't really belong as part of the street name, and
that may possibly be true in your neighborhood.  But in my neighborhood,
it definitely IS part of the street name and can't be left off, for
mailing or not.  In my part of the Portland area, SW Takena is a
completely separate unrelated street from NW Takena.  In Seattle, Forest
Ave S is completely separate and unrelated from Forest Ave SE.

So I disagree, it does belong as part of the street name.  If you have a
prefix or suffix that you think is optional, don't call it the
directional prefix or suffix that the rest of the country uses; we have
them for a reason.

- Alan



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Lord-Castillo, Brett]

I understand that idea. But TigerLine 2010 starts releasing in December, with 
every state released by February. The main difference between your proposal and 
adopting the address standard would be that directional and type prefixes and 
suffixes would be broken out from each other and from informational prefixes 
and suffixes. That's a small subset of streets to worry about, but it will mean 
that streets will actually match up to the new tiger data, rather than having 
to manually rematch all of those.

Or, we could just forgot about using TigerLine 2010, which I think would be a 
mistake.

Brett Lord-Castillo
Information Systems Designer/GIS Programmer
St. Louis County Police
Office of Emergency Management
14847 Ladue Bluffs Crossing Drive
Chesterfield, MO 63017

Office: 314-628-5400

Fax: 314-628-5508

Direct: 314-628-5407

 


-Original Message-
From: Kevin Atkinson [mailto:ke...@atkinson.dhs.org] 
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:54 PM
To: Lord-Castillo, Brett
Cc: 'talk-us@openstreetmap.org'
Subject: RE: [Talk-us] Address Standard

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:

> The vast majority of street addresses are only going to have only four 
> elements:
> 2.2.1.2 Address Number
> 2.2.2.2 Street Name Pre Directional or 2.2.2.6 Post Directional
> 2.2.2.4 Street Name
> 2.2.2.5 Street Name Post Type or 2.2.2.3 Street Name Pre Type
> That's hardly a significant burden and easily understood by most people. If 
> the other elements don't exist, you don't use them at all. Like I said, it's 
> a tag based model, not a table based, so you don't even need to enter nulls 
> for the other elements.
> The complex elements do not have to be entered either, since they are all 
> compositions of the simple elements. All the other 12 elements are only 
> entered for the rare addresses that use them.

My point I was trying to make was that it still more trouble than just 
entering in a single name, and, in my view, not worth the extra complexity 
in data entry.

I think that these components should be automatically separated by parsing 
the street name some how, and only require manual entry when there is 
ambiguity.  When there is ambiguity, I think just entering in the Street 
Name (base type in tiger) will be enough.

> As I said, the important thing here is that this is likely to be the 
> FGDC standard soon, and looks to be the format for TIGER 2010 and 
> subsequent updates.

The point as I was trying to make is that I personally don't want to deal 
with them in my proposal for prefixes and suffixes.  I want to push 
something simple though which can get used now.  At a latter date we can 
decide if we should fully break out the address and how to use it.

Also my proposal is more about what should be displayed as the street 
name on the map, and less about a full breakout.  I will redo my proposal 
to make that more clear, and also to make sure it is not incompatible with 
a future move to a full breakout.

<>___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:


The vast majority of street addresses are only going to have only four elements:
2.2.1.2 Address Number
2.2.2.2 Street Name Pre Directional or 2.2.2.6 Post Directional
2.2.2.4 Street Name
2.2.2.5 Street Name Post Type or 2.2.2.3 Street Name Pre Type
That's hardly a significant burden and easily understood by most people. If the 
other elements don't exist, you don't use them at all. Like I said, it's a tag 
based model, not a table based, so you don't even need to enter nulls for the 
other elements.
The complex elements do not have to be entered either, since they are all 
compositions of the simple elements. All the other 12 elements are only entered 
for the rare addresses that use them.


My point I was trying to make was that it still more trouble than just 
entering in a single name, and, in my view, not worth the extra complexity 
in data entry.


I think that these components should be automatically separated by parsing 
the street name some how, and only require manual entry when there is 
ambiguity.  When there is ambiguity, I think just entering in the Street 
Name (base type in tiger) will be enough.


As I said, the important thing here is that this is likely to be the 
FGDC standard soon, and looks to be the format for TIGER 2010 and 
subsequent updates.


The point as I was trying to make is that I personally don't want to deal 
with them in my proposal for prefixes and suffixes.  I want to push 
something simple though which can get used now.  At a latter date we can 
decide if we should fully break out the address and how to use it.


Also my proposal is more about what should be displayed as the street 
name on the map, and less about a full breakout.  I will redo my proposal 
to make that more clear, and also to make sure it is not incompatible with 
a future move to a full breakout.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Steven Johnson wrote:


Well, hang on a tic... I don't know if you can really say, "...no one will
manually enter in all those parts, especially since the distinction would be
meaningless to most people." Just like breaking out the prefix, I think
breaking out the address into a finer granularity makes the address more
useful all around. And I think there's plenty of latent demand for improving
address data in OSM.


First off, by "no one" I meant "most people", sorry I tend to be a bit too 
strong in my word choice.


Well it will be useful.  The question is if it worth the trouble.


I whole-heartedly agree with you though that a large part of the address
standard is beyond most OSM needs. So what parts of the standard can we take
and which can we ignore (for now)? Some months ago I did a quick cross-walk
of the address standard and the Karlsruhe schema. I'll try to dig it out and
update it.


For now I just want to break out the prefix (and maybe the suffix) from 
the displayed name on the map which I hope we can agree on.  It will not 
be incompatible with a future move to a full breakout of the components of 
a street name.


Of course others are welcome to debate what parts of the standard should 
be used, I personally don't want to deal with them in my proposal.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Steven Johnson]

Well, hang on a tic... I don't know if you can really say, "...no one will
manually enter in all those parts, especially since the distinction would be
meaningless to most people." Just like breaking out the prefix, I think
breaking out the address into a finer granularity makes the address more
useful all around. And I think there's plenty of latent demand for improving
address data in OSM.

I whole-heartedly agree with you though that a large part of the address
standard is beyond most OSM needs. So what parts of the standard can we take
and which can we ignore (for now)? Some months ago I did a quick cross-walk
of the address standard and the Karlsruhe schema. I'll try to dig it out and
update it.

SEJ

"Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans." -Empedocles



On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 15:57, Kevin Atkinson wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
>
>  I just want to point out that the federal address standard has passed
>> through the public comment period and is now in committee review. It is
>> expected to become a federal regulation in early 2011.
>>
>> http://www.urisa.org/about/initiatives/addressstandard
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> The standard is presented as a tag based model expressed in xml. It
>> would probably be a serious mistake to ignore it. It actually directly
>> addresses (in address data content) all of the issues that are getting
>> hashed over here, and quite a few that have not been brought up yet (like
>> dual and quad number addresses).
>>
>
> I looked it over.  If you really wanted to break out every last possible
> part of a street name it would be a good guideline to follow.  The problem
> is no one will manually enter in all those parts, especially since the
> distinction would be meaningless to most people.
>
> My main goal was to separate out the directional prefix because, which
> while important for mailing, did not really belong as part of the street
> name.  I thought I would take care of the suffix as well.
>
> However, since I now see that there are other, non-directional, prefix and
> suffixes. I might simplify my proposal to simply include any prefix and
> suffixes not included with the displayed street name.  I am also considering
> dropping the "included" provision until such time that all components are
> broken out.
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Lord-Castillo, Brett]

The vast majority of street addresses are only going to have only four elements:
2.2.1.2 Address Number
2.2.2.2 Street Name Pre Directional or 2.2.2.6 Post Directional
2.2.2.4 Street Name
2.2.2.5 Street Name Post Type or 2.2.2.3 Street Name Pre Type
That's hardly a significant burden and easily understood by most people. If the 
other elements don't exist, you don't use them at all. Like I said, it's a tag 
based model, not a table based, so you don't even need to enter nulls for the 
other elements.
The complex elements do not have to be entered either, since they are all 
compositions of the simple elements. All the other 12 elements are only entered 
for the rare addresses that use them.

The Subaddress, Landmark, Place, and USPS elements are only used for those 
special address types, so they don't come into play on street addressing (and 
actually provide a standardized way of dealing with rural routes and placemark 
addresses, which we can currently only deal with as POIs).

As I said, the important thing here is that this is likely to be the FGDC 
standard soon, and looks to be the format for TIGER 2010 and subsequent updates.
--Brett
Brett Lord-Castillo
Information Systems Designer/GIS Programmer
St. Louis County Police
Office of Emergency Management
14847 Ladue Bluffs Crossing Drive
Chesterfield, MO 63017

Office: 314-628-5400

Fax: 314-628-5508

Direct: 314-628-5407

 

-Original Message-
From: Kevin Atkinson [mailto:ke...@atkinson.dhs.org] 
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:57 PM
To: Lord-Castillo, Brett
Cc: 'talk-us@openstreetmap.org'
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:

> I just want to point out that the federal address standard has passed 
> through the public comment period and is now in committee review. It is 
> expected to become a federal regulation in early 2011.
>
> http://www.urisa.org/about/initiatives/addressstandard
>
> ...
>
> The standard is presented as a tag based model expressed in xml. It
> would probably be a serious mistake to ignore it. It actually directly 
> addresses (in address data content) all of the issues that are getting 
> hashed over here, and quite a few that have not been brought up yet 
> (like dual and quad number addresses).

I looked it over.  If you really wanted to break out every last possible 
part of a street name it would be a good guideline to follow.  The problem 
is no one will manually enter in all those parts, especially since the 
distinction would be meaningless to most people.

My main goal was to separate out the directional prefix because, which 
while important for mailing, did not really belong as part of the street 
name.  I thought I would take care of the suffix as well.

However, since I now see that there are other, non-directional, prefix and 
suffixes. I might simplify my proposal to simply include any prefix and 
suffixes not included with the displayed street name.  I am also 
considering dropping the "included" provision until such time that all 
components are broken out.

<>___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:

I just want to point out that the federal address standard has passed 
through the public comment period and is now in committee review. It is 
expected to become a federal regulation in early 2011.


http://www.urisa.org/about/initiatives/addressstandard

...

The standard is presented as a tag based model expressed in xml. It
would probably be a serious mistake to ignore it. It actually directly 
addresses (in address data content) all of the issues that are getting 
hashed over here, and quite a few that have not been brought up yet 
(like dual and quad number addresses).


I looked it over.  If you really wanted to break out every last possible 
part of a street name it would be a good guideline to follow.  The problem 
is no one will manually enter in all those parts, especially since the 
distinction would be meaningless to most people.


My main goal was to separate out the directional prefix because, which 
while important for mailing, did not really belong as part of the street 
name.  I thought I would take care of the suffix as well.


However, since I now see that there are other, non-directional, prefix and 
suffixes. I might simplify my proposal to simply include any prefix and 
suffixes not included with the displayed street name.  I am also 
considering dropping the "included" provision until such time that all 
components are broken out.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Address Standard

[Carl Anderson]

WRT to the FGDC address data standard.

The capacity to connect related addresses (aliases, alternate names and
historic names) together is an important feature.

Carl Anderson
cander...@spatialfocus.com
carl.ander...@vadose.org
(sent from my phone)

On Aug 11, 2010 9:28 AM, "Lord-Castillo, Brett" <
blord-casti...@stlouisco.com> wrote:
> In the midst of all this discussion of prefixes, suffixes, abbreviations,
and directions...
> I just want to point out that the federal address standard has passed
through the public comment period and is now in committee review. It is
expected to become a federal regulation in early 2011.
> http://www.urisa.org/about/initiatives/addressstandard
> This is a federal address -data- standard encompassing the required
government formats for address data for all possible address formats used in
the United States and US territories. The USPS has already developed a new
address profile to conform to this standard (basically a extension to ISO
19106 and Publication 28). The Census has signed on as well, and the next
version of TIGER will likely implement the FGDC proposal.
> The standard is presented as a tag based model expressed in xml. It would
probably be a serious mistake to ignore it. It actually directly addresses
(in address data content) all of the issues that are getting hashed over
here, and quite a few that have not been brought up yet (like dual and quad
number addresses).
>
> Brett Lord-Castillo
> Information Systems Designer/GIS Programmer
> St. Louis County Police
> Office of Emergency Management
> 14847 Ladue Bluffs Crossing Drive
> Chesterfield, MO 63017
> Office: 314-628-5400
> Fax: 314-628-5508
> Direct: 314-628-5407
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us