Houses with numbers from two streets

Communities Portugal
1

In PT it seems that properties on the corner of two streets have a number for each of those streets, even though it is only one building.

Is there an accepted way of tagging these?

See note here: Note: 3923326 | OpenStreetMap
Also cafe here (you can see my edits in the history): Node History: ‪Ponto de Encontro‬ (‪11886846343‬) | OpenStreetMap

2

Related question: how do you tag a property that occupies two units? Eg,

3

I believe this is what you’re looking for:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:street:corner

1 Like
4

If the building has an address based on the names of two streets, then addr:street:corner is what you look for.

If the building has two housenumbers, one for each of the two streets, then you’re looking for
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr2:*

1 Like
5

Thanks, that is the situation in these two cases.

6

If the house has two entrances, then it would be much better to tag the entrances and give each their own address, leaving the building untagged. As far as I can make out the situation on Mapillary this is the case here. The addr2:* tagging schema is not very well supported and I would avoid it unless there is the actual situation where a single point of entrance has two addresses assigned.

In the case of the cafe, I would expect that the amenity itself takes on exactly one of the two addresses. But that’s really something that needs to be surveyed on the ground, possibly by asking the owner of the cafe.

3 Likes
7

This is the Mapillary Streetview to illustrate the situation:

The cafe faces onto Rua da Mercês and has 15 above the door on a blue enamel plaque (you’ll have to take my word for it). It has a second door facing onto Tv da Memoria, and that has 9 on a plaque above the door.

This seems to be a particularly Lisbon thing, so was hoping for local responses - @AntMadeira sounds like you don’t recognise this situation? Or would a Portuguese person not count the Tv da Memoria address as part of the building at all, even tho it’s visible on the ground?

8

It’s somewhat common in Lisbon for there to be 2 or 3 separate numbers & entrances on both streets at a corner, so the addr2 approach would require using addr3 etc as well in some cases, which I doubt apps support well.

I feel like the separate address points for each address + entrance gives a better idea spatially, and might help make routing a little more accurate.

2 Likes
9

Dear Eteb3,

I kindly ask you to review the post by Longia, which, in my opinion, provides a comprehensive answer to all the questions raised.

Yours sincerely,
A Portuguese person

1 Like
10

Sorry for being late to the post!
I believe it is not necessary to use or create an unapproved and undocumented tag, especially when there are other correct ways to register these elements, as suggested here in previous posts (one node per address, prefereabily at each door, aprox.)
The drawback of the solution meanwhile adopted, using addr2:*, is that it actually registers that tag in the database, but it is useless, as mapping tools (it can’t be seen), geolocation (it can´t be found) or routing (it can’t be a source or destination) do not use this tag: For example, I can find the address of Rua das Mercês, but not Travessa da Memória 9, in Nominatim or Pelias (it exists in Mapbox but the source is not OpenStreetMap).
It is as if it did not exist.

1 Like
11

Thanks, I’ve done as you suggest.