Talk:Proposed features/House numbers/Bremen Schema

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


It's true that the address data should be defined only once, followinig this principle : One feature, one OSM element. Your proposal is mainly compensating your point :

"there is nothing implemented which applies the housenumber from the building-way."

This is something that has to be solved by software. Any GIS application (or postGIS db) is able to find the surrounding building-way and therefore, the address. You cannot ask the contributors to repeate the same information millions times in the db just because this tool does not exist yet. Push the software devs to make this feature available instead of proposing a duplicate tag just to avoid rendering issues. --Pieren (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

1 and 3 would be solved - but not the other ones and 3a.--Cracklinrain (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I always add the full addr:* address to each POI / shop inside a building because a) this method generates redundant data but is resistant against broken relations, b) it cannot be expected that all software is able to understand that all nodes of a building have the same address, c) single buildings exist that have 2 addresses (even 2 streets), d) it takes pretty no extra time to do so, e) it is easy to verify correctness of all address nodes / POIs with such data format in a street.--Markus59 (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
if you add an address to a poi, the address is an attribute, not a feature, therefore you can have many references to the same address. If you see the address as a feature, it must cover the complete area it is referring to, not just a node (at least for German addresses it is like this). A housenumber 12-16 are actually several parcels which form together one site, with individual numbers like 12,13,14,15,16 or 12,14,16 or 12a,12b,12c,14,16 (you cannot see from the address alone which are those individual numbers). I find the tag name contact:housenumber etc. misleading for something that actually IS itself at this address. --Dieterdreist (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)