On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com> wrote:
> In the case I am looking at now there is no street number for the > campground. At least there is no sign indicating one nor have I seen a > street number on an any map. So I guess that addr:housenumber might work. > But I imagine that there are campgrounds that actually have an street > number assigned to the whole complex, so overloading addr:housenumber would > not work. > Common cases for campgrounds include: 1) The roads have names, but they exist only in a database somewhere, the actual roads are not signed or known by those names. 2) The roads developed over time and were never planned or named, and may in fact shift based on season. 3) All the roads are collectively known by some name (e.g. "South fork campground loop"). 4) The sites are walk-in, far from a road. --- I think the EMS/911 use case is just as good as the mailman analogy. If you wrote what you mapped on a slip of paper describing an emergency, could the EMS crew get there without confusion? I think rendering is the least important consideration: if there is sufficient mapping of any particular style, the rendering will follow starting with the maps most oriented towards camping (open cycle map, for example, might be an early adopter). -- But that said addr:housenumber has a certain elegance. You can imagine entering that into a generic OSM routing engine and getting a sensible result (directions to that particular campsite). You're not really overloading addr:housenumber in the case the campground has postal address. The camp itself exists on a road. The camp sites then relate to the camp: name=Camp Hypothetical addr:housenumber=153 addr:street=Hypothetical Street website=* addr:housenumber=153 addr:street=Camp Hypothetical group_only=yes Thus all campgrounds can use *addr:housenumber* for the space number.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
