Near where I live an OSM user has gone through and assigned addresses to everything. I mean almost literally everything from buildings, to parks, to benches, to garbage cans, to residential polygons. It’s had the odd effect of causing validation warnings on things that now have odd tag combinations as well as becoming the last modified user on a large area. When I look at the users history they’ve been doing this over about a year. It feels like that is excessive addressing. Thoughts? Any suggestions on if there should be anything should be done to correct that?
Example, I found a pond in a residential backyard with an address.
I would expect to see addresses only on buildings and POIs such as restaurants, shops, factories, …
You can contact the previous mapper(s) to ask what is the goal for the addresses on ponds, etc
If you do not get any reaction in a reasonable timeframe (2 weeks or so, especially with the holidays coming up), you can remove the addresses I think
I’ve sometimes put address tags on vacant lots if I could tell from my walk by that it had an address. I’ve seen equipment boxes for telephone or cable TV stenciled with what look to be valid addresses. And from my local city’s website I see that public parks often have an official address.
But I can’t imagine a pond, bench or garbage can having a street address. Sounds like it might be from a GIS import gone bad. Do the change sets list the source of the information?
I found an example of a garbage can with an address. Using Overpass Turbo, you can find various different things with questionable addresses in the Halifax/Dartmouth area (example query). There’s no source on the objects or changesets, so it’s unclear where they’re getting these addresses from or why they’re addressing objects which almost certainly don’t have that address. There are also cases of multiple objects with the same address (the little building beside the linked garbage can has the same address).
I’d sure be curious to hear their explanation.
I’ve sent them a message but not heard anything back. My knowledge of addressing in Nova Scotia suggests it shouldn’t be there on these other objects. Is this a case that should be handed to the data team to take a look at? I could start removing them in places I don’t agree with, but that sounds like a losing battle if it just continues.