Brian Quinion wrote: >> Imo, yes, you should put all those details onto the objects that carry >> addr:housenumber (either nodes or building outlines). That's the method >> intended by the documentation and I don't see a good reason for not >> sticking to it in this case. > > inconsistent duplication.
I'd accept inconsistent duplication as an argument against using addr:street at all and in favor of associatedStreet relations. I'd also accept it for addr:city vs. boundary polygons. But as an argument for moving address details to the interpolation ways? It's at most a factor 2 for duplications, that doesn't really change much. You will want some checks no matter whether it's 10000 or 20000 addr:street entries in a city. Considering that this question is not decisive for the amount of duplication, other aspects are more relevant here. Namely: - 1 way of doing it is better than 2 ways of doing it - usability (for example: use the same JOSM presets for housenumbers with and without interpolation way attached to them; no partial copy of attributes required when removing an interpolation way) > Discarding all data that doesn't perfectly conform to the > specification would remove quite a large percentage - this case alone > accounts for around 3% of the data. These percentages might decrease if people actually had an incentive to create data conforming to the specification (such as applications only accepting data that does). 3% doesn't sound that impressive, btw. Is that before or after performing interpolation? Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
