On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/12/21 Erik Johansson <erjo...@gmail.com> >> >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> >> wrote: >> > Then why don't you use "place=locality, name=45-29" if that's all you >> > want. >> >> Thanks, that's a good idea (if it works), > > what do you mean by: if it works? All alternative ways to the well > established addressing scheme don't "work". It's easy as that. > place=locality is generally used to give names to localities that don't > match other established features (can be lots, hills, named localities, > etc.), IMHO a locality-node "name=45-29" to express housenumbers is wrong. > >> >> >> Does anyone have any improvements to make this scheme better? >> > >> > Yes, use the same scheme that everyone else uses as well ;-) > > +1 > >> >> I don't care about geocoders, I will fix it but I'm not that keen on >> getting geocoders to work. > > as soon as someone else is editing in your area it will be conflicting > anyway. I just don't see the point of entering useful information in a way > it will not be retrieved...
But it is retrieved in the only way I care about namely the rendered map. It could be retrieved by geocoders as well, with small changes, it was this change I wanted help with. Note, place=locality seems even better after what you said, or do you have a better tag combo that works? So these are the issues 1. I interpolate but can't only see one end... 2. I will only enter a number, because a human can use it. 3. I will use the housenumber scheme since that works at the moment and this is what I'm mapping. -- /emj _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
