Update analyser_osmosis_relation_associatedStreet.py #2517
Conversation
Update title to reflect the community choice to use addr:street/place on nodes for addresses.
|
Your version has not the same meaning. The opposite would be "addr:housenumber or addr:housename outside of associatedStreet relation need to have addr:street, addr:district, addr:neighbourhood, addr:quarter, addr:suburb, addr:place or addr:hamlet". But the two means the same and more over we try to avoid changing as it would flag the string to be as reviewed in all translation. |
|
I don't understand. |
The missing relation is part of the issue. You should have at least one tag of addr:street, addr:district, addr:neighbourhood, addr:quarter, addr:suburb, addr:place, addr:hamlet or a relation. |
That's my point, Osmose should not ask the end user to add a relation. |
|
Why not ? mapping with addr:* or relation are both valid and documented way of doing this https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses |
|
The recommended method in France (and many other country) is without associatedStreet relation. |
|
The relation is not documented as a deprecated feature. This issue maybe be raised because a relation exist an just this address is not yet part of it. In Osmose, we try include a all valid way of mapping, and do not enforce one way of doing. |
I would be agree with this analyzer if an associatedStreet relation exists very close to the node, but this is not what I see. There is no associatedStreet relation in the surrounding area. And the right fix is not a relation, but a
The title says: "must be in a associatedStreet relation". If you insists to keep the associatedStreet mention, we could change the Title to something like |
|
How about adding a |
| @@ -614,7 +614,7 @@ class Analyser_Osmosis_Relation_AssociatedStreet(Analyser_Osmosis): | |||
| def __init__(self, config, logger = None): | |||
| Analyser_Osmosis.__init__(self, config, logger) | |||
| self.classs[1] = self.def_class(item = 2060, level = 3, tags = ['addr', 'relation', 'fix:chair'], | |||
| title = T_('addr:housenumber or addr:housename without addr:street, addr:district, addr:neighbourhood, addr:quarter, addr:suburb, addr:place or addr:hamlet must be in a associatedStreet relation'), | |||
| title = T_('addr:housenumber or addr:housename without addr:street, addr:district, addr:neighbourhood, addr:quarter, addr:suburb, addr:place or addr:hamlet need a addr:street or addr:place tag'), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| title = T_('addr:housenumber or addr:housename without addr:street, addr:district, addr:neighbourhood, addr:quarter, addr:suburb, addr:place or addr:hamlet need a addr:street or addr:place tag'), | |
| title = T_('addr:housenumber or addr:housename without tags addr:street, addr:district, addr:neighbourhood, addr:quarter, addr:suburb, addr:place or addr:hamlet or in a associatedStreet relation'), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this isn't grammatically correct?
How about:
addr:housenumber or addr:housename without addr:street, addr:district, addr:neighbourhood, addr:quarter, addr:suburb, addr:place or addr:hamlet, and also not in an associatedStreet relation?
Or something like:
addr:housenumber or addr:housename without sufficient higher-level address tags or associatedStreet relation.
(And move the details to a details or fix message)
Update title to reflect the community choice to use addr:street/place on nodes for addresses.