On Fri, 18 May 2012, Tobias Johansson wrote: > I see your point concerning you don't have to do it that way. But I > don't really se any reason for not doing it that way? And if it makes > it simpler? > > But I have no big objection for what you say. I myself have mapped a > lot of houses the way you stated before I saw some other presentation > Lulu-Ann made and thought "hadn't thought of that". > > And isn't all taggig done according to diffrent peoples opinions? :) > (just a thought).
While it is not that harmful to have addresses in the entrance nodes if you have only single address, it gets quite "challenging" in places where a building can have more than one address, cases for even 4 valid addresses exists (we're yet to find a 5 address case but even those would be possible at least in theory). ...So it's not just about what is somebody's opinion but there are situation some approaches fail to solve in a reasonable way (and this problem was explained multiple times to Lulu-Ann but the solutions while retaining the addresses in the entrances proposed were lousy hacks). But obviously if the address really is for a entrance instead of the building, it probably makes more sense to put that to entrance itself. -- i. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
