I support using the addrN:* tagging proposed here in the specific
situation where a single residence or business has multiple addresses.
Note I am not referring to a building with multiple occupiers, but a
single addressee with more than one address. In England I have never
encountered this sit
On 19/08/2014 22:17, fly wrote:
but 265-267 is wrong as 266 is not included. Either tag 265;267 or add
addr:interpolation=odd
I'm not clear with this example, do numbers 265 and 267 exist as
separate units inside the building?
In the UK, house numbers like 265-267 do exist where there is only
On 20/08/2014 00:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Il giorno 19/ago/2014, alle ore 23:45, Will Phillips ha
scritto:
I find that by far the most time consuming part of surveying house numbers is
actually adding the data afterwards and for this reason I think we should be
trying to make the
I often use the addr:interpolation tag on entrances or buildings. I
don't understand some people's objection to this. I don't see any
ambiguity: if the addr:interpolation tag is present the addr:housenumber
tag represents a range, otherwise it should be interpreted as a single
address. As someo
