On 19.01.2015 12:37, Markus Lindholm wrote: > Treating addresses as attributes might be fast and convenient but that > kind of scheme > becomes incoherent as there is no one-to-one relationship between > addresses and other features. > E.g. > - There are MULTIPLE POIs that all relate to ONE address > - There are MULTIPLE addresses that all relate to ONE building > So you would end up with a database where the address information is > stored "all over the place" and no coherent way to process it. Better > to have bare address nodes and when necessary use a relation to create > an association between the address and other features.
We already have zillions of POIs (e.g. shop nodes) with address attributes. If you wanted to keep address information separate, you would need to add just as many address nodes and relations. You would even need to separate all addresses from buildings. So your vision is not only incompatible with the addrN scheme, it is incompatible with how addresses are used in OSM altogether. You apparently wish to implement a relational database concept for address information, but this is just impossible because OSM is not a relational database. All data in OSM directly or indirectly contains geographical information. When you use a relation to connect a shop node (which has geographical coordinates) to an address node (which as geographical coordinates), you have two conflicting sets of geographical coordinates. So if you are looking for normalisation, you need to get rid of the address nodes altogether and set the adress tags on the relation directly. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
