On 18 January 2015 at 22:11, Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-01-18 20:52 GMT+00:00 Markus Lindholm <markus.lindh...@gmail.com>: >> On 17 January 2015 at 22:16, Friedrich Volkmann <b...@volki.at> wrote: >>> With the addrN schema, we need one object (a node tagged shop=* and >>> addrN:*=*) for a shop. >>> With the provides_feature relation we need one node for the shop, one node >>> for each address, and one relation. >> >> And if there are two shops that both have the same address? Then your >> scheme breaks down as you would end up with a database with two >> distinct nodes but same address. Clearly a bad thing and against the >> principle of 'One feature - one element' >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element > > This criticism is mistaken. (The wiki page even gives a counterexample > of "More than one of something on the same site" which is rather > similar to "two shops with the same address".) We have lots of > examples in OSM of two distinct objects with the same address - it's > quite common in real life, and if it is a problem then it's nothing to > do with "addrN", it would be a problem with a large portion of our > "addr" data!
I think that comes down to how addresses are viewed, either as a proper feature in their one right or as an attribute to some other feature. I think addresses are proper features, so a distinct address should be found only once in the database. /Markus _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
