Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town
and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address
where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but
locality sounds almost offensive.
To me 'locality' just sounds neutral. I don't particularly object to
addr:town and addr:village, but it does mean we end up with at least
three tags rather than one, because in cities suburbs often don't fit
easily into those tags, hence the use of addr:suburb.
Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names are
written before street names, not after them.
In my experience this often isn't true, perhaps look at more examples.
It is relatively common for business park and industrial estate names to
appear after street names.
Examples:
Lenton Lane Industrial Estate, Nottingham
http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16&lon=-1.17632&lat=52.93295&bgl=OSM,1,15&s=%22Lenton%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22&st=SearchOpendataJson&uc=1
Trent Lane Industrial Estate, Castle Donington
http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16&lon=-1.34152&lat=52.85018&bgl=OSM,1,15&s=%22Trent%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22&st=SearchOpendataJson&uc=1
Sherwood [Business] Park, Annesley,
http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16&lon=-1.25353&lat=53.07037&bgl=OSM,1,15&s=%22Sherwood%20Park%22&st=SearchOpendataJson&uc=1
Regards,
Will
On 28/01/2019 15:06, Andrzej wrote:
Is it possible to use addr:locality for both towns and villages? That
could simplify things quite a bit and I have yet to see an address
that needs a post town and two levels of localities below.
Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town
and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address
where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but
locality sounds almost offensive.
Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names are
written before street names, not after them. They're IMO what RM calls
"dependent thoroughfares". For these I would simply use addr:place,
which can already be combined with addr:housename and
addr:housenumber. Alternatively we could make a new tag like addr:campus.
Best regards,
Andrzej
On 28 January 2019 20:36:24 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale
<colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi Will,
On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:
Hi,
I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For
this I have usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas
and addr:locality elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to
have just one recommended tag, perhaps addr:locality, because
having addr:town addr:village and addr:suburb seems too
complicated. Eventually it would be good if editing software, in
particular iD, could provide an extra field to enter the
locality, and it would perhaps be easier for that to happen if
there was only one tag. New mappers often seem to have difficulty
entering addresses to the form that they wish and I think the
lack of a locality field is part of the reason.
For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using
addr:sublocality is a possibility, although I wonder whether just
sticking with addr:village for this less common situation would
be easier. It depends a bit on whether this tag is only likely to
be used for villages and hamlets, or whether it might be useful
in other cases. For example, sometimes names of industrial
estates appear in addresses in a similar way to sublocalities.
I don't see any advantage in "addr:village" and "addr:suburb" just
because they sound familiar or are existing tags. What we are
discussing here is a UK-specific solution. The (Double) Dependent
Localities may or may not correspond to what people perceive as a
"village" or "suburb". In the quoted example, "Cambridge Science
Park" is IMHO neither.
I only use addr:city for post towns, although I recognise not all
mappers agree with this, and I appreciate there are arguments
both ways. I was thinking about this recently when adding
addresses in Lees near Derby. The post town is Ashbourne, but
this seems slightly incongruous because the village is much
nearer to Derby. I chose not to include addr:city and only used
addr:locality for the village name.
I feel the main argument in favour of using post towns for
addr:city is that it helps to keep the data consistent because
what to use often becomes confusing otherwise. To use the example
of Lees I mentioned above, it would be easy to end up with a
situation where addr:city contained perhaps four values if the
data was entered by different people without any guide as to what
to use (the most likely possibilities being Lees, Dalby Lees,
Derby or Ashbourne).
In cases where local residents consider Royal Mail's choice of
post town to be contentious, usually because it is miles from
where they live, it might be sensible to recognise addr:posttown
as an alternative.
The accepted paradigm is that the address should represent the
postal address, and not any administrative relationships. As you
will know RM have their own particular ideas of the geography of
the UK, all done for their own convenience. It would certainly
avoid some confusion if we used addr:posttown instead of addr:city.
Regards,
Colin
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
