On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Carl Anderson
carl.ander...@vadose.org wrote:
A Colloquial core phrase is something we all use everyday. We shorten
names down to a useful, but still meaningful, core.
If I were to say that I was at 14th and K, many of my DC friends would know
that I was at
The discussion about how to tag a street name is important
whether the tags are on the street or in an address.
Can we move toward using relations instead of tagging the street
name in each address?
Copying the street name into each address is problematic.
If we hope to some day have all
ok, thanks, carl. this helps. i'm working on an emergency services
related project
right now and it's helpful to learn about these things.
the next question is this. supposing we implement Steven's proposal, how
does
this help in emergency services mapping projects, that is, what does
this
Hi all,
Two things:
First, thanks Mark, for a very useful suggestion. I need to think about it,
but I think it has merit from the standpoint of streamlining the address
assignment process, as well as keeping address points in sync with their
associated streets.
Second, Richard, please see
relations seem to be a elegant solution for people with technology
background. And all your arguments are good ones
BUT they have quite some disadvantages. Too many non techies have problems
to get the concept right. As a result they break existing relations or they
are scared away from editing
Hi,
On 21.11.2012 22:51, Apollinaris Schöll wrote:
relations seem to be a elegant solution for people with technology
background. And all your arguments are good ones
BUT they have quite some disadvantages. Too many non techies have
problems to get the concept right. As a result they break
On 11/21/12 5:48 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 21.11.2012 22:51, Apollinaris Schöll wrote:
relations seem to be a elegant solution for people with technology
background. And all your arguments are good ones
BUT they have quite some disadvantages. Too many non techies have
problems to get
From: Mark Gray [mailto:mark-os...@hspf.com]
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Feature proposal: proposed expanded address
tagging scheme for US
In taginfo, I see there is already some use:
86023 instances of associatedStreet
14921 instances of Street
This is still small compared with:
15461897
On 11/21/12 4:16 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
Second, Richard, please see Carl's post which talks about the proposal from
the standpoint of emergency services. Carl could likely say what the pros
cons are of splitting the tags vs loading everything in the addr:street tag.
i did read Carl's post.
I understand what you're saying. It is a nice solution, but it's not
without trade offs. In the very short run, relations are difficult for new
mappers, both conceptually and using the existing tools to create and
maintain them. In the longer run, I think our editing tools will improve,
hopefully
All,
This proposal is a good thing, provided that it does not deprecate current
tagging uses.
From my experiences in emergency services (911), emergency management (FEMA
and State/County EMA), and location finding I find that it is often very
important to know what the colloquial core phrase of
* Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com [2012-11-17 18:45 -0500]:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/UnitedStates
From my perspective, addr:street_prefix and addr:street_type don't seem
that useful, since I don't see how they add information that's useful to
data
Bill,
That's good info; nice to have some local examples. There are numerous
examples like, South East Lake Drive where directionals could be confused
with names. A couple more that come to me off the top of my head...
1) Charlotte, NC has a road called, The Plaza.
2) Richmond, VA has a road
Steven,
Thanks for the reply.
More inline.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com wrote:
Richard Serge,
Thanks for the comments. Let me see if I can clarify...
The problem: Unlike other (mostly European) countries, there are at least 4
street naming schemes,
Steve,
I suggest you start your proposal with a problem statement and then explain
how your solution solves the problem. Otherwise it looks to me to be a
solution looking for a problem. Do we have any data to suggest that the
current street addresses do not work? Why is it just a US problem?
If
From: Serge Wroclawski [mailto:emac...@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Feature proposal: proposed expanded address
tagging scheme for US
Since local conditions vary so
widely across the US, having more tags gives mappers more flexibility
to tag what they see.
How does it give them
Since my email client sent my messages direct to the OP and not to the
list, I'm going to resend them:
First response:
-
We have to be careful that the availability of this granularity doesn't
insecure the road names, specifically in cases where part of the road name
could be
Hi all,
Following up on an action from SotM-PDX, I've posted a proposal for
expanded tagging for addresses, primarily in the US (though it may have
application in other countries). The intent of the tags is to 1) improve
the description of US addresses, and 2) provide greater flexibility for
local
18 matches
Mail list logo
