Frederik Ramm wrote: >Sent: 09 December 2008 1:37 PM >To: Matt Amos >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] addressing > >Hi, > >Matt Amos wrote: >> sure, editor support isn't 100% yet, but why re-create a poor-man's >> relations with name-based references, when we already have "proper" >> relations? > >In my eyes an address is not a relation. It comes close, but a house >*can* have an address that has nothing to do with the road that passes >it. The address "31 So-and-So Street" does not mean that this is the >31st house on So-and-So Street, it doesn't even necessarily mean that >the entrance is via So-and-So Street or that it is in the vicinity of >30, 32, or 33... I view an address as an individual attribute of a >certain property that is often similar to addresses of neighbouring >properties, but need not be.
I've spotted that in the UK the street name really isn't anything to do with the street per se. In many cases the street sign only appears at the start/end of a run of properties. Historically it was a way of relating the property to a location. SO taking that a step further its really the street that should be related to the property and not the other way around. Cheers Andy > >Bye >Frederik > > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1838 - Release Date: 08/12/2008 >6:16 PM _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
