[mkgmap-dev] Should we exclued bridges from housenumber processing?

Sat Jun 6 15:41:50 BST 2015

Are there not going to be some complaints from Florence for example? Why
should it be invalid by definition to have an address on a bridge? 

Sometimes the bridges are tagged (often wrongly, IMHO) with the name of
the bridge and not the name of the road carried by the bridge. Some
people use bridge_name=* to make it explicit, but often you see the
value of name=* changing for a bridge. I expect it would be up to the
local authority whether any addresses which might be present are given
the name of the bridge, or the name of the road leading to the bridge. 

//colin 

On 2015-06-06 16:29, Gerd Petermann wrote: 

> Hi all,
> 
> Mario Batschke suggested in a private mail to use
> highway=* & bridge=yes {set mkgmap:numbers=false}
> in the finalize section for lines so that addresses are not
> assigned to bridges. 
> 
> I think this is a good idea.
> 
> He also suggested to exclude tunnels, but I see quite a lot
> cases where this doesn't improve the address search, e.g.
> for shops in underground stations.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Gerd 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev [1]

Links:
------
[1] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20150606/adc58a8a/attachment.html>