2010/9/1 David Paleino <da...@debian.org>: > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:31:22 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > >> Hello list, >> while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc, >> we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all? >> (Karlsruhe schema) >> >> I've always used it to associate housenumbers to the given street (I found a >> relation more error-proof than addr:street), but then we thought then no new >> type of relation is needed for this ([0] and [1], for example). >> >> [0]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Street >> [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways >> >> In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together (various >> segments + "links"). That's Relation:route, with route=road. What about a >> "house" role to include housenumbers there? >> >> [..] > > Ok, after some more discussion on #osm...@oftc , we kind-of-agreed that > route=road isn't suitable for all cases, and there are places in the world > where it's not suitable at all (because not all streets with the same name are > proper "routes"). > > So we settled that Relation:street, as proposed in [0], would be more > suitable, > both for grouping segments together (yes Simone and Nathan, just for the sake > of it, because I think it's convenient to keep them logically together with a > relation), _AND_ for grouping a way with its housenumbers. > > This would obviously deprecate Relation:associatedStreet in favour of > Relation:street.
Ok, +1. > David Ciao, Simone _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
