Hmm, I'm convinced the associatedStreet relation is the most elegant way to solve the redundancy problem. The biggest issue with it is the one street per relation limitation, which I don't understand where it comes from. So, as far as I'm concerned, it'd be better to redefine it.
Polyglot 2011/5/3 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > 2011/5/3 Jo <winfi...@gmail.com>: > > The very first I did, I did it according to 'spec': > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7595148 > > > > The result is a ridiculous amount of 4 relations for a street of less > than > > 1,5 km in length. Some of which only contain one house. And each of them > > containing redundant name, addr:city, addr:postcode and addr:country > tags. > > > Yes, I know. In your case (just one house) the relation indeed seems > to be far less adequate in respect to simple tags. Relations add a > complexity that is mostly not desirable IMHO for cases like > housenumbers. The easier it is to enter (and maintain) them, the more > we will get. I suggest to put the information to nodes/polygons for > this reason (and for stability), even if it seems to be a less elegant > (more redundant) approach from a computer science perspective. > > cheers, > Martin >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
