If that’s the way the object:* is verified, then to me it seems redundant, since not adding any information that’s not already on the map. Also, if this practice were accepted, then it would become hard to argue against someone tagging everything with object:street, object:housenumber of the nearest building; including trees, hydrants, pedestrian crossings, trash cans, etc.
Well, I did not invent object:*, so I cannot argue very well. But your concerns are valid.
In this particular case, where the operator of something identifies/locates it’s objects using addresses, object:* is better than addr:* - assuming that addr:* is somehow a postal address, where parcels and letters can be delivered to.
Otherwise: if the addr:* or object:* cannot be verified, it should not be tagged with it.
no, a nearby building can have its own address, if the address on an object is not verifiable, other nearby addresses are not confirming the address, they might be helpful to assess the likelihood of the address but can’t be used for actual verification
post delivery is just one of many uses of addresses and should not be reason to change keys for the same kind of thing. Other possible uses are for example emergency access, identification for tax purposes, …
That’s silly. It’s perfectly possible to have an address without a building. A smallholding can have an address. A building plot can have an address even though the building hasn’t been put up yet. Permanently moored boats can have an address. A marina can have an address even if it doesn’t have any buildings. And so on.
All of those examples involve land or possible human residences. Most governments require that all physical place of ownership or residence has an addresses for tax purposes.
Sidewalks usually exist as an easements on private land. Making objects on the sidewalk share the same address as the property that runs underneath that section of sidewalk.This should be be reflected in any lease or other legal documents relating to the bike rental business at that location.