Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
51 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Tagging mailing list

Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Sarah Hoffmann
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
>
> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
>
>
> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.

I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
support it in Nominatim in the past. See
https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.

The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.

Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
to the addr:housenumber tag.

Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.

I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
But I might be fighting wind mills here.

Sarah


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Tagging mailing list
Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".

This new tag:

- applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
- "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
- "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
- "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
- "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.

"addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.

However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")

What are your thoughts on this?

Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper

--


21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by [hidden email]:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes

Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html


Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.

I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
support it in Nominatim in the past. See
https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.

The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.

Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
to the addr:housenumber tag.

Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.

I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
But I might be fighting wind mills here.

Sarah


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Tagging mailing list
I like this new tag.

I had proposing something like that on my TODO list.

to mark addr:housenumber=1-3 as a single address, not a range
(based on survey that I remember well)

Dec 21, 2020, 19:05 by [hidden email]:
Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".

This new tag:

- applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
- "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
- "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
- "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
- "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.

"addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.

However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")

What are your thoughts on this?

Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper

--


21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by [hidden email]:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes

Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html


Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.

I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
support it in Nominatim in the past. See
https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.

The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.

Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
to the addr:housenumber tag.

Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.

I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
But I might be fighting wind mills here.

Sarah


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Brian M. Sperlongano
Would this work for addressing schemes that use a hyphenated prefix?

In Hawaii, addresses outside of the city of Honolulu use a two-digit prefix in addresses to determine which sector of the island an address is located.  So an address might be something like "99-123 Kamehameha Highway".  Would this scheme work for an apartment complex that's addressed something like 99-100 through 99-200 <Street Name>?

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:15 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like this new tag.

I had proposing something like that on my TODO list.

to mark addr:housenumber=1-3 as a single address, not a range
(based on survey that I remember well)

Dec 21, 2020, 19:05 by [hidden email]:
Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".

This new tag:

- applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
- "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
- "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
- "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
- "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.

"addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.

However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")

What are your thoughts on this?

Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper

--


21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by [hidden email]:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:

Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.



Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.

I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
support it in Nominatim in the past. See

The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.

Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
to the addr:housenumber tag.

Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.

I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
But I might be fighting wind mills here.

Sarah


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Tagging mailing list
What do you mean by this? You would have to tag with addr:range=no, as that is not a default value.

However, don't see this as a downside. Currently, software such as OSMand interprets hypenated addresses as a range anyway, so requirement to  tag addr:range=no would be a benefit.

IpswichMapper

--



21 Dec 2020, 18:27 by [hidden email]:
Would this work for addressing schemes that use a hyphenated prefix?

In Hawaii, addresses outside of the city of Honolulu use a two-digit prefix in addresses to determine which sector of the island an address is located.  So an address might be something like "99-123 Kamehameha Highway".  Would this scheme work for an apartment complex that's addressed something like 99-100 through 99-200 <Street Name>?

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:15 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like this new tag.

I had proposing something like that on my TODO list.

to mark addr:housenumber=1-3 as a single address, not a range
(based on survey that I remember well)

Dec 21, 2020, 19:05 by [hidden email]:
Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".

This new tag:

- applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
- "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
- "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
- "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
- "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.

"addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.

However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")

What are your thoughts on this?

Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper

--


21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by [hidden email]:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:

Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.



Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.

I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
support it in Nominatim in the past. See

The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.

Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
to the addr:housenumber tag.

Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.

I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
But I might be fighting wind mills here.

Sarah


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Kevin Kenny-3


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:15 PM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
What do you mean by this? You would have to tag with addr:range=no, as that is not a default value.

However, don't see this as a downside. Currently, software such as OSMand interprets hypenated addresses as a range anyway, so requirement to  tag addr:range=no would be a benefit.

Ouch.  So every building in Queens, NY (one of the five boroughs of New York City, with about 2.3 million inhabitants) would need to have an 'addr:range=no' tag added in order not to break routing and navigation there?


--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Tagging mailing list
How would this break routing and navigation? As far as I know, geocoders currently read hypenated addresses as ranges anyway (correct me if I'm wrong) so this proposal won't change what happens to hypenated addresses without addr:range tag. (Ime. Navigation is already broken in NYC)

IpswichMapper

---


21 Dec 2020, 19:44 by [hidden email]:


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:15 PM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
What do you mean by this? You would have to tag with addr:range=no, as that is not a default value.

However, don't see this as a downside. Currently, software such as OSMand interprets hypenated addresses as a range anyway, so requirement to  tag addr:range=no would be a benefit.

Ouch.  So every building in Queens, NY (one of the five boroughs of New York City, with about 2.3 million inhabitants) would need to have an 'addr:range=no' tag added in order not to break routing and navigation there?


--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Brian M. Sperlongano
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
I am specifically referring to apartment complexes that are hyphenated address now, but are also a range.

I.e. 99-100 through 99-200 might have 99-100, 99-102, 99-104... etc.

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:15 PM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
What do you mean by this? You would have to tag with addr:range=no, as that is not a default value.

However, don't see this as a downside. Currently, software such as OSMand interprets hypenated addresses as a range anyway, so requirement to  tag addr:range=no would be a benefit.

IpswichMapper

--



21 Dec 2020, 18:27 by [hidden email]:
Would this work for addressing schemes that use a hyphenated prefix?

In Hawaii, addresses outside of the city of Honolulu use a two-digit prefix in addresses to determine which sector of the island an address is located.  So an address might be something like "99-123 Kamehameha Highway".  Would this scheme work for an apartment complex that's addressed something like 99-100 through 99-200 <Street Name>?

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:15 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like this new tag.

I had proposing something like that on my TODO list.

to mark addr:housenumber=1-3 as a single address, not a range
(based on survey that I remember well)

Dec 21, 2020, 19:05 by [hidden email]:
Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".

This new tag:

- applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
- "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
- "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
- "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
- "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.

"addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.

However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")

What are your thoughts on this?

Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper

--


21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by [hidden email]:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:

Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.



Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.

I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
support it in Nominatim in the past. See

The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.

Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
to the addr:housenumber tag.

Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.

I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
But I might be fighting wind mills here.

Sarah


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Turns out nominatim just doesn't do ranges at all. I.e. if you label a building 40-48 xyz street and then search 42 xyz street it won't show up. OSMand, however, does assume that they are ranges.

I see two solutions:

1. Have no default value and geocoders will do whatever they already do with hypenated addresses.
2. Default value is addr:range=no and it has to be specified if you want a geocoder to assume its a range.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper

--


21 Dec 2020, 19:50 by [hidden email]:
How would this break routing and navigation? As far as I know, geocoders currently read hypenated addresses as ranges anyway (correct me if I'm wrong) so this proposal won't change what happens to hypenated addresses without addr:range tag. (Ime. Navigation is already broken in NYC)

IpswichMapper

---


21 Dec 2020, 19:44 by [hidden email]:


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:15 PM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
What do you mean by this? You would have to tag with addr:range=no, as that is not a default value.

However, don't see this as a downside. Currently, software such as OSMand interprets hypenated addresses as a range anyway, so requirement to  tag addr:range=no would be a benefit.

Ouch.  So every building in Queens, NY (one of the five boroughs of New York City, with about 2.3 million inhabitants) would need to have an 'addr:range=no' tag added in order not to break routing and navigation there?


--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Paul Allen
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 20:03, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
Turns out nominatim just doesn't do ranges at all. I.e. if you label a building 40-48 xyz street and then search 42 xyz street it won't show up. OSMand, however, does assume that they are ranges.

I see two solutions:

1. Have no default value and geocoders will do whatever they already do with hypenated addresses.
2. Default value is addr:range=no and it has to be specified if you want a geocoder to assume its a range.

Third solution.  We realize that there is no character we can designate
to act as a range indicator because those characters appear in
addresses that are not ranges.  We come up with something similar
in syntax to addr:flats to deal with ranges.  This may require a
lot of retagging over time, but the current options are broken in
one or more ways.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Brian M. Sperlongano
Hmm, maybe we need to use a new character for ranges.

--



21 Dec 2020, 20:00 by [hidden email]:
I am specifically referring to apartment complexes that are hyphenated address now, but are also a range.

I.e. 99-100 through 99-200 might have 99-100, 99-102, 99-104... etc.

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:15 PM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
What do you mean by this? You would have to tag with addr:range=no, as that is not a default value.

However, don't see this as a downside. Currently, software such as OSMand interprets hypenated addresses as a range anyway, so requirement to  tag addr:range=no would be a benefit.

IpswichMapper

--



21 Dec 2020, 18:27 by [hidden email]:
Would this work for addressing schemes that use a hyphenated prefix?

In Hawaii, addresses outside of the city of Honolulu use a two-digit prefix in addresses to determine which sector of the island an address is located.  So an address might be something like "99-123 Kamehameha Highway".  Would this scheme work for an apartment complex that's addressed something like 99-100 through 99-200 <Street Name>?

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:15 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like this new tag.

I had proposing something like that on my TODO list.

to mark addr:housenumber=1-3 as a single address, not a range
(based on survey that I remember well)

Dec 21, 2020, 19:05 by [hidden email]:
Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".

This new tag:

- applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
- "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
- "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
- "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
- "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.

"addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.

However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")

What are your thoughts on this?

Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper

--


21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by [hidden email]:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:

Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.



Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.

I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
support it in Nominatim in the past. See

The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.

Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
to the addr:housenumber tag.

Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.

I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
But I might be fighting wind mills here.

Sarah


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 3:42 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Third solution.  We realize that there is no character we can designate
to act as a range indicator because those characters appear in
addresses that are not ranges.  We come up with something similar
in syntax to addr:flats to deal with ranges.  This may require a
lot of retagging over time, but the current options are broken in
one or more ways.

My guess is that a double hyphen might be able to achieve the desired effect; I don't see it used very much, and it's natural to anyone who's used something like BibTeX. But my guess is that it'll be a bridge too far.

In any case, if there is a good proposal forthcoming, I'll be happy to retag messes like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/491160765 to conform. (It works today with all the geocoders that I'm aware of. It looks like hell on the default rendering but at least it's correct.  By the way, all those house numbers share a common entrance, with all eight numbers in brass lettering on the doorposts, one above the other, four to the left of the door and four to the right. The postal address is something like '504 Connor Court,' not 'Willowbrook Apartments, apartment #504".
--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Paul Allen
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 21:42, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 3:42 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Third solution.  We realize that there is no character we can designate
to act as a range indicator because those characters appear in
addresses that are not ranges.  We come up with something similar
in syntax to addr:flats to deal with ranges.  This may require a
lot of retagging over time, but the current options are broken in
one or more ways.

My guess is that a double hyphen might be able to achieve the desired effect; I don't see it used very much, and it's natural to anyone who's used something like BibTeX.

Or TeX itself.  But most typographers these days don't bother using
an en-dash to represent numeric ranges.
 
But my guess is that it'll be a bridge too far.

Probably.  Only people who read the documentation would know
to use it.  Better to have addr:housenumber_range that would
be displayed in address presets, or something like that.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Sarah Hoffmann
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 07:05:10PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
> Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".
>
> This new tag:
>
> - applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
> - "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
> - "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
> - "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
> - "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.

It's better. It would resolve half the issue. addr:housenumber would still
have a double interpretation but it's the smaller of the two issues.

addr:housenumber:range would capture a bit better what the tag means
but it starts to get uncomfortably long.

> "addr:range=all" is the default  because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.

That would only make sense, when you define addr:range as being
applicable to housenumbers with hyphens only. However your definition
above was imo more sensible:
"applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber"

If you look at all nodes and ways with addr:housenumbers 99.999% have
a addr:range=no. So that makes more sense as a default then.

> However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
> Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.

My guess would be that the main reason that people started using the
hyphen notation with addr:housenumber is that they wanted something
human readable on the map. And addr:housenumber was already rendered.

With that in mind, I think there is a reasonable way forward even for
a addr:range tag as you suggest and also for a separate
addr:housenumber_range=1-15 like I would prefer. For both it is relatively
easy to support a new agreed on proposal while still using the old
behaviour where the new one is not yet implemented. So the transition would
be:

1. Agree on proposal.
2. Get openstreetmap-carto, Nominatim and others to support new proposal.
3. Tell mappers about proposal.
4. Wait a few years.
5. Drop support for addr:housenumbers with interpolations.

Sarah

>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
> --
>
>
> 21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by [hidden email]:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
> >
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
> >>
> >> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
> >>
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.
> >>
> >
> > I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
> > support it in Nominatim in the past. See
> > https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.
> >
> > The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
> > addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.
> >
> > Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
> > to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
> > you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
> > to the addr:housenumber tag.
> >
> > Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
> > different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
> > building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
> > housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
> > and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.
> >
> > I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
> > But I might be fighting wind mills here.
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>

> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 23. Dec 2020, at 17:32, Sarah Hoffmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> My guess would be that the main reason that people started using the
> hyphen notation with addr:housenumber is that they wanted something
> human readable on the map. And addr:housenumber was already rendered.


in Italy it is very common for places to have housenumber ranges, because most shop windows have housenumbers. Shops use either the number of the actual door, or sth like 35-39 if they have 35, 37, 39.
Or they use 35/37/39. Or any of those numbers. So far I’ve added the single numbers as nodes, sometimes adding entrance=yes/no, and the shop address the same as they do, or separated with semicolons (I think it is generally not consistent in the sense, that the same variant would have been applied universally)

Would you suggest we mark ranges in Poi addresses with an additional tag?

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Sarah Hoffmann
Im gping to update the proposal tonight, when I have time.

I currently think suggesting a new character, | , used to explicitally specify ranges. The advantage of this is that ypu can interpolation hypenated addresses, e.g. :

addr:housenumber="19-100|19-200"

Would imply : 19-100, 19-102, 19-104, 19-106 etc.

Renderers can use "19-100 to 19-200" 

Hypens would be accepted, but this is clearer.

The problem is that now you will have to get every single renderer and geocoder to understand this (which will take months ,even years).



--
23 Dec 2020, 16:29 by [hidden email]:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 07:05:10PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".

This new tag:

- applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
- "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
- "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
- "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
- "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.

It's better. It would resolve half the issue. addr:housenumber would still
have a double interpretation but it's the smaller of the two issues.

addr:housenumber:range would capture a bit better what the tag means
but it starts to get uncomfortably long.
"addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.

That would only make sense, when you define addr:range as being
applicable to housenumbers with hyphens only. However your definition
above was imo more sensible:
"applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber"

If you look at all nodes and ways with addr:housenumbers 99.999% have
a addr:range=no. So that makes more sense as a default then.
However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")

What are your thoughts on this?
Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.

My guess would be that the main reason that people started using the
hyphen notation with addr:housenumber is that they wanted something
human readable on the map. And addr:housenumber was already rendered.

With that in mind, I think there is a reasonable way forward even for
a addr:range tag as you suggest and also for a separate
addr:housenumber_range=1-15 like I would prefer. For both it is relatively
easy to support a new agreed on proposal while still using the old
behaviour where the new one is not yet implemented. So the transition would
be:

1. Agree on proposal.
2. Get openstreetmap-carto, Nominatim and others to support new proposal.
3. Tell mappers about proposal.
4. Wait a few years.
5. Drop support for addr:housenumbers with interpolations.

Sarah

Thanks,
IpswichMapper
--


21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by [hidden email]:

> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
>>
>> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
>>
>>
>> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.
>>
>
> I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
> support it in Nominatim in the past. See
> https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.
>
> The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
> addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.
>
> Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
> to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
> you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
> to the addr:housenumber tag.
>
> Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
> different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
> building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
> housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
> and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.
>
> I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
> But I might be fighting wind mills here.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Tagging mailing list
I am not so happy about it.

Typing that would be extremely unnatural.

Maybe better have additional add:range:from= addr:range:to=
for ranges?

Dec 23, 2020, 20:10 by [hidden email]:
Im gping to update the proposal tonight, when I have time.

I currently think suggesting a new character, | , used to explicitally specify ranges. The advantage of this is that ypu can interpolation hypenated addresses, e.g. :

addr:housenumber="19-100|19-200"

Would imply : 19-100, 19-102, 19-104, 19-106 etc.

Renderers can use "19-100 to 19-200" 

Hypens would be accepted, but this is clearer.

The problem is that now you will have to get every single renderer and geocoder to understand this (which will take months ,even years).



--
23 Dec 2020, 16:29 by [hidden email]:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 07:05:10PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".

This new tag:

- applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
- "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
- "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
- "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
- "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.

It's better. It would resolve half the issue. addr:housenumber would still
have a double interpretation but it's the smaller of the two issues.

addr:housenumber:range would capture a bit better what the tag means
but it starts to get uncomfortably long.
"addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.

That would only make sense, when you define addr:range as being
applicable to housenumbers with hyphens only. However your definition
above was imo more sensible:
"applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber"

If you look at all nodes and ways with addr:housenumbers 99.999% have
a addr:range=no. So that makes more sense as a default then.
However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")

What are your thoughts on this?
Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.

My guess would be that the main reason that people started using the
hyphen notation with addr:housenumber is that they wanted something
human readable on the map. And addr:housenumber was already rendered.

With that in mind, I think there is a reasonable way forward even for
a addr:range tag as you suggest and also for a separate
addr:housenumber_range=1-15 like I would prefer. For both it is relatively
easy to support a new agreed on proposal while still using the old
behaviour where the new one is not yet implemented. So the transition would
be:

1. Agree on proposal.
2. Get openstreetmap-carto, Nominatim and others to support new proposal.
3. Tell mappers about proposal.
4. Wait a few years.
5. Drop support for addr:housenumbers with interpolations.

Sarah

Thanks,
IpswichMapper
--


21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by [hidden email]:

> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
>>
>> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
>>
>>
>> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.
>>
>
> I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
> support it in Nominatim in the past. See
> https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.
>
> The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
> addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.
>
> Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
> to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
> you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
> to the addr:housenumber tag.
>
> Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
> different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
> building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
> housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
> and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.
>
> I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
> But I might be fighting wind mills here.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

Tod Fitch-2
Vertical bar character is already in use for turn lanes[1]. Not a big deal to type it, at least on a US keyboard. Certainly easier to type it than to enter two key/value pairs for the same information. Seems like a poor reason to avoid it since it is one of the few characters that seems unlikely to exist on an address in the wild.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Turning_indications_per_lane

> On Dec 23, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I am not so happy about it.
>
> Typing that would be extremely unnatural.
>
> Maybe better have additional add:range:from= addr:range:to=
> for ranges?
>
> Dec 23, 2020, 20:10 by [hidden email]:
> Im gping to update the proposal tonight, when I have time.
>
> I currently think suggesting a new character, | , used to explicitally specify ranges. The advantage of this is that ypu can interpolation hypenated addresses, e.g. :
>
> addr:housenumber="19-100|19-200"
>
> Would imply : 19-100, 19-102, 19-104, 19-106 etc.
>
> Renderers can use "19-100 to 19-200"
>
> Hypens would be accepted, but this is clearer.
>
> The problem is that now you will have to get every single renderer and geocoder to understand this (which will take months ,even years).
>
>
>
> --
> 23 Dec 2020, 16:29 by [hidden email]:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 07:05:10PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
> Okay. In this case I can rename to proposal page to "addr:range".
>
> This new tag:
>
> - applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber
> - "addr:range=n" means every nth house is counted in a range
> - "addr:range=even/odd" means every even/odd house is counted
> - "addr:range=all" means every house is counted (default value for a housenumber tag with a hyphen in it if no range is given).
> - "addr:range=no" means that the housenumber tag is NOT a range of values but rather a single housenumber.
>
> It's better. It would resolve half the issue. addr:housenumber would still
> have a double interpretation but it's the smaller of the two issues.
>
> addr:housenumber:range would capture a bit better what the tag means
> but it starts to get uncomfortably long.
> "addr:range=all" is the default because that is what the wiki says and what software like streetcomplete suggests. Many buildings with multiple housenumbers are tagged like this.
>
> That would only make sense, when you define addr:range as being
> applicable to housenumbers with hyphens only. However your definition
> above was imo more sensible:
> "applies to nodes and closed ways that have addr:housenumber"
>
> If you look at all nodes and ways with addr:housenumbers 99.999% have
> a addr:range=no. So that makes more sense as a default then.
> However, software can create different defaults for different countries. For example, in the UK a hypenated address most probably means a range of even/odd addresses (so "addr:range=2")
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
> Also, I had linked the talk-gb thread, which discusses how addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes is already standard. That is the problem with suggesting a new tag. This proposal would now require informing multiple mappers to switch up the taggong scheme.
>
> My guess would be that the main reason that people started using the
> hyphen notation with addr:housenumber is that they wanted something
> human readable on the map. And addr:housenumber was already rendered.
>
> With that in mind, I think there is a reasonable way forward even for
> a addr:range tag as you suggest and also for a separate
> addr:housenumber_range=1-15 like I would prefer. For both it is relatively
> easy to support a new agreed on proposal while still using the old
> behaviour where the new one is not yet implemented. So the transition would
> be:
>
> 1. Agree on proposal.
> 2. Get openstreetmap-carto, Nominatim and others to support new proposal.
> 3. Tell mappers about proposal.
> 4. Wait a few years.
> 5. Drop support for addr:housenumbers with interpolations.
>
> Sarah
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
> --
>
>
> 21 Dec 2020, 15:19 by [hidden email]:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:37:08PM +0100, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote:
> >
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:interpolation_on_closed_ways_and_nodes
> >>
> >> Quick proposal I just created to accept this form of tagging. This follows from a discussion on the Talk-GB mailing list.
> >>
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025553.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Please comment if there are issues with accepting this form of tagging.
> >>
> >
> > I dislike this kind of tagging to the point that I've refused to
> > support it in Nominatim in the past. See
> > https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565 for the full disucssion.
> >
> > The problem is that it makes the interpretation of addr:housenumber and
> > addr:interpolation dependent on the presence of another tag.
> >
> > Note that addr:housenumber=40-48 can be a valid housenumber. Example:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285077586 So to know if the tag needs
> > to be interpreted as a single housenumber or as a housenumber range
> > you need to check if the node/way has a addr:interpolation tag in addtion
> > to the addr:housenumber tag.
> >
> > Similarly, a way with addr:interpolation needs to be processed in two
> > different ways: If a addr:housenumber is present, then assume it's a
> > building and parse the addr:housenumber tag to get the range. If no
> > housenumber is on the way, assume it is a good old interpolation line
> > and look at the housenumbers along the nodes of the way.
> >
> > I find this kind of double meaning for tagging confusing and error-prone.
> > But I might be fighting wind mills here.
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list


sent from a phone

> On 23. Dec 2020, at 20:12, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> addr:housenumber="19-100|19-200"
>
> Would imply : 19-100, 19-102, 19-104, 19-106 etc.


it could also imply 19-100, 19-101, 19-102...
and you also can’t know which numbers are included and which do not exist

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123