On 21 January 2015 at 13:17, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>> And
>> if that's the case, what's wrong with creating a node on the building for
>> each additional valid address? People looking for an amenity could look up
>> closest POIs after finding a secondary address. It's not a clean situation,
> in the same buildings
Correction: building.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Dmitry,
In most cases the address of a POI is the same as the address of a building
it's located in. The address of a building can be derived from address
nodes within its outline ', and then extrapolated to other POIs in the same
buildings. It doesn't work precisely when there's no outline, but
> > No, it's not two addresses, it's just a single one. It's just a
> > particular feature of it that you can omit a part of it (either of the
> > building numbers or sometimes the street name if you have the
> > conscription number).
> I've got your point, but I cant agree with you that it's not
On 19 January 2015 at 12:08, Dmitry Kiselev wrote:
>> In my country, both numbers are used concurrently
>> and together with street name
>
> Such thing, that you use conscription numbers
> and street numbers all together in a same time
> doesn't make conscription numbers "not an address"
I didn't
On 19 January 2015 at 11:43, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 19.01.2015 10:54, Andrew Shadura wrote:
>> This problem is already solved by bare address nodes.
> You have been refuted numerous times by counter examples and other facts
> (e.g. POIS, undefined scope of address nodes)
On 19 January 2015 at 11:33, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> I have been living in this country for all my life, and I worked at a post
> office for some months. So you can safely believe my statements. But all you
> mind to say it that it's all untrue. Well, maybe you also say that the
> heliocentric
On 19 January 2015 at 10:49, Dmitry Kiselev wrote:
> yep it's all about "buildings who have multiple addresses valid for all
> suites."
This problem is already solved by bare address nodes. There's
absolutely no need to introduce an additional ugly complex scheme just
to avoid spatial lookups int
On 19 January 2015 at 10:41, Dmitry Kiselev wrote:
> Addresses are still distinct as they was
> There is only one building for Praha, 606
This may or may not be true, as Prague has more than one district
where the conscription addresses are unique.
> and only one building for Praha, Staroměstské
On 19 January 2015 at 11:08, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> That's wrong, as I've already explained in another message. When you write a
> letter to an address in Austria using a conscription number, you MUST omit
> the street name. Otherwise the letter will be returned as undeliverable.
> Similarly
On 19 January 2015 at 05:54, Dmitry Kiselev wrote:
> So we have 2 millions things in OSM going against OSM modeling tradition:
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr%3Aconscriptionnumber
> It's same story, two addresses for one object.
> First: hn-street-city
> Second: hn-city
> Scheme is di
Dmitry,
Conscription numbers are not double addresses, you're mixing things up.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Oh no, why one more proposal?
Another broken "solution" for a problem which is already solved.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 15 January 2015 at 17:08, Florian Schäfer wrote:
> Hello Friedrich,
> in Czech Republic they have a similar problem: They have so called
> conscription numbers, which are unique in the whole city and
> additionally the normal housenumbers.
> They use the key addr:streetnumber (675,742× used) fo
On 15 January 2015 at 03:02, johnw wrote:
> The proposal seems to be a good solution to this problem.
This particular proposal seems to be a terrible solution to this
problem. It requires changes to the software, and the tagging scheme
is ugly as hell. At the same time, there's much simpler and b
Hi,
Some places in the wiki mention cycleway:lanes:* tags, and those are
indeed used in a few places (31 uses currently). It seems to me these
tags are obsolete and have been replaced by bicycle:lanes:*, is that
correct? Should I probably mass-replace them?
--
Cheers,
Andrew
_
Hi,
On 15 August 2014 16:29, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
> ZcSSxfsxzsvz CcCCf vfzzzdwzvbxcas cdzdzvxzdxzc
I'm afraid I can't understand a word you're saying.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstree
Hi,
I'm for minage. Compare with minspeed and maxspeed, for example.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Hello,
On 17 June 2014 11:24, Philip Barnes wrote:
> I disagree with just using a number, the tags are there to indicate that the
> mapper had interpreted the speed limit from the type of road.
> Should the limits change they make finding the limits that require changes
> easier.
How do users fi
Hello,
On 17 June 2014 13:36, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 6/17/14 5:24 AM, Philip Barnes wrote:
>> The number should be tagged, and I would not expect a data consumer to use
>> maxspeed tags, they are useful for validation.
> there are any number of reasons why a consumer might use a
> maxspeed t
Both "maxspeed=:" and "maxspeed=" are
evil, as we need to have a separate DB for those zonal limits. Please, just
use maxspeed=.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Hello,
2014-03-10 12:01 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout :
> Just a quick reminder, the term "borough" has several meanings and could
> easily be misused. In Alaska, where I'm from, boroughs are large
> administrative areas — very similar to counties in the contiguous United
> States. So they are district
Hello,
I think it's important to add both tagging@ and talk-cz@ to the loop,
as this question needs more serious consensus, in my opinion. I've left
the original message below, just in case anyone wants to translate it
from Czech directly.
In short, Dalibor proposes to use addr:place and addr:bor
23 matches
Mail list logo
