On Thursday 23 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > Ok, if the address is essentially "The airport on X-street" or "The > > government office on Y-street" then i think the type of feature is > > part of the address and this needs to be indicated in tagging > > somehow. And And I don't think the fact that there is no house > > number needs to be specifically indicated then. > > Take a look at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/BiJ please > (probably there are much more variants that people use than the ones > from this query) > > All these objects have some kind of "no housenumber" abbreviation at > addr:housenumber (which is exactly the same problem of using name="No > name").
Ok, these look primarily like the opposite of Roland's example in that: * it seems to be common practice to explicitly mention the lack of the house number when specifying the address. * the address is not unique without the name of the object in question, there are often multiple independent and unrelated features (like different shops in different buildings) with the same address. I would say that if you want to specify per object address tags here (which as indicated is somewhat questionable because the lack of uniqueness and in substance the only meaningful information you specify is the associated street) it is at least as important to indicate in tagging that the address to be unique needs to include the name - kind of like name_is_a_necessary_part_of_address=yes (not a serious suggestion in this form but you probably get the idea) as to explicitly indicate the lack of a house number. Also i kind of doubt if this form of specifying the lack of a house number is that common mappers would be inclined to give it up in favour of a different tagging scheme. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
