<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'><br><br><div><hr id="stopSpelling">From: gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com<br>To: gdt@ir.bbn.com<br>Subject: RE: [mkgmap-dev] Should we exclued bridges from housenumber processing?<br>Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 05:31:42 +0200<br><br>
<style><!--
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {
padding:0px;
}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage {
font-size:12pt;
font-family:Calibri;
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">Hi Greg,<br><br>> I don't see why an address shouldn't be valid just because it's on a<br><div>> road that happens to be a bridge. It would be good to get pointers to<br>> the situations where people think this proposed rule makes sense, and we<br>> can then see if we think there are tagging errors.<br><br>you are right, I should have mentioned the reason. The new housenumber<br>code is much slower than the old one, the major reason is that it has to<br>find matching roads without using the name. In the default style,<br>I've added some rules to exclude roads which probably never should be used<br>for adresses, e.g. motorways, ferries and ways created by the --make-opposite-cycleways<br>option.<br>Marios idea was that bridges and tunnels are like those,<br>but it turned out that we have valid addresses on bridges and in level -1 areas.<br><br>So, I think the short answer is <br>"no, we should not exclude bridges"<br><br>thanks for the feedback to all others too<br><br>Gerd<br><br></div> </div></div> </div></body>
</html>