Point taken. In this case, they are the center of property polygons, so not on buildings, conflated with buildings nor at entrances. I don't mind if they are reasonably placed as nodes, but these are not quite there, yet.
James On Sat, 2018-07-21 at 15:34 -0400, Nathan Mills wrote: > To the extent that the address points are not duplicates of existing > address nodes, unconflated address nodes are a perfectly legitimate > means of mapping and do not need to be "fixed." Even if the address > exists on a poly, it's still fine as long as the node is marking > something meaningful, like the front door of the building. Some have > in the past gone so far to say that nodes are preferable since it > allows routers for the differently abled to provide door-to-door > guidance. > > -Nathan > > > On July 21, 2018 2:39:36 PM EDT, James Umbanhowar <jumba...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > Sorry, I just saw this. Please do not upload this, yet. You have > > not > > responded to any of the feedback that I have given. Instead you > > have > > chosen to just upload all the points into the database and then > > correct > > the database afterwards. > > > > Please, instead, break this into smaller areas and then conflate > > the > > points with existing objects and then upload. From what I can tell, > > this would be easiest done with the Tasking Manager. > > > > Also, I have already signalled my willingness to help with this > > task > > and using the tasking manager would allow me and possibly others to > > help. > > > > Thank you, > > > > James > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 23:42 -0400, Leif Rasmussen wrote: > > > Hi everyone! > > I have finally verified the license on the Chatham > > > County, NC address data which includes about 44,000 address > > > points. > > > It is public domain except for that it has a "no direct resale" > > > policy that allows indirect resale (includes other data), which > > > is > > > compatible with OSM. Durham County, which uses the ODbL has > > > also > > > produced address data. I will be completing both the imports > > > this > > > weekend. Some discussion has taken place about adding buildings > > > in > > > Durham at the same time as the import, but to keep everything > > > more > > > simple, I have decided on just adding nodes for now and then > > > merging > > > with buildings later. This would reduce complexity and help > > > everything run more smoothly. I will upload all of the data > > > alone. > > > This helps keep everything more simple, leading to fewer > > > mistakes. I > > > do not see very much benefit to having several account all > > > importing > > > the data. > > > > Details: > > Size of both imports combined: 190,000 addresses > > Date of upload: Saterday and Sunday, 21st and 22nd of July, 2018 > > Type of import: One time with JOSM in 20 changesets. > > Account: LeifRasmussen_import > > > > Wiki pages: > > Durham County > > Chatham County > > > > Please let me know of any concerns of ideas! I would love to > > improve > > the import as much as I can. > > Thanks! > > Leif Rasmussen > > > > > > Imports mailing list > > impo...@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports > > _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us