On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote: > My suggestion is to use a new interpolation value; something like > interpolation=step + step=4 (step=2 would produce the same result as > odd/even, depending on the house number it starts with; step=1 would > have the same effect as all).
I'd agree with that if the numbers 2, 6, 10, etc. were being reserved for different lots. But in this example, the lots are really each being assigned two numbers. Something which perhaps should be clarified is that Randy said that "the large majority of housing is single family". Does this mean that duplexes are disallowed in most areas, and you are only going to use this scheme where duplexes are disallowed (and keep it up to date as zoning changes and/or variances are granted)? Or does this mean that most houses on a particular street are single family, and a few here and there are duplexes? Either way, I would suggest that simply using an even/odd interpolation is the better solution. In the former case, it saves you from updating things every time there's a zoning change or variance granted. And in the latter case, it's just plain the only correct thing to do. As I said in my previous message, an interpolation explicitly omits the number of houses. In my town we have plenty of blocks (especially in commercial areas) with addressing like "1701, 1733, 1751, 1755". In fact, I'll give a real example from my town: 14802, 14602, 14502, 14402, 14324, 14308, 14002. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
