Landal nummering bungalows

[roelant]

@InsertUser

I don’t know how the emergency services work in the Netherlands, but as national address data exists then I would expect them to use that and their own asset databases rather than OSM, so this conversation is probably irrelevant to them.

You’re in for a surprise then: the majority of emergency services in The Netherlands use OSM-based navigation.

Proof of this can be found in them contributing to the map for this purpose, and/or responding in various changesets, topics here (usually on behalf of and organised on the level of the “veiligheidsregio’s” aka “safety regions”). Not to mention that this particular discussion was (re-)sparked by one of those requests for help.

I can see how this is probably (relatively) unique for the Netherlands. It’s the result of the fact that the Dutch parts of OSM are especially complete, detailed and up-to-date compared to other regions, therefore (more easily) maintainable up to the point that they’re usually more accurate and up-to-date than the (commercial) alternatives.

Which in turn is explained by the availability of the data-sets available to us, that we are both able to be imported (such as a one time big import of roads, and the ongoing import of buildings and addresses) or used as mapping layers (see my profile to get an idea about those), etc., in combination with a relatively big group of active mappers and it just not being that big a country to begin with.

On the other hand, I think the guest on the phone to 112(?) is probably going to say the number they see on the building rather than try to look it up while also on the phone and trying to stop the bleeding, so this would still be the better address to record as the primary address…

This is actually the crux of the problem and relates to the original request for help: we know what options the 112-centralists have as it was shared with us (here among other places).

The person that answers your 112-emergency-call can choose to send the ambulance to: the official address, known objects at this location (such as a named shop, office or other relevant POI), the address the phone calling is registered to and if applicable the GPS-coordinates of a the mobile phone making the call. Either one of these will be sent directly to the responding vehicle(s).

The unofficial made-up numbers by the park, while ground truth, are not (yet) available to them.

even if the emergency services did use OSM.

Well, as I explained… they actually do.

Before I get into more of the specifics, I’d like to address that in general, your reply (understandably, so no offence taken or meant from my end) is lacking some Dutch context.

I’ve hope to have provided (and will provide) some of that here. And while your input and thoughts are more then welcome, please have a little faith that we’re also not just fumbling around, but that there’s a bunch of highly experienced mappers discussing this - based on a very real situation.

official_addr:* would then make this clear that what you see on the ground differs from what the government says (in the raw data at least).

There’s one thing in favour and two things against this.

In favour:

• It’s consistent with the already existing official_name tag.

Against it:

• It’s inconsistent with the prefix/postfix tagging that is common for the address-key space, e.g. addr:*. From that perspective something like addr:official:* (allowing for more then just the number to be registered as such) would make more sense. Or addr:alt:* (see below).
• Its a new tag, as compared to an existing tag (we tried to go with something that’s possibly already recognised as part of the address, and therefore searchable).

Not to mention It could also be argued that instead since it’s the park’s address that should be put in a different tag (so the equivalent of alt_name or loc_name), because otherwise it would result in duplicate addresses (as mentioned before, there is a case where the address that results of the park’s own numbering, results in an address that already exists outside the park.

So it would make sense to reserve the primary address-namespace for official addresses, and make the park’s on made up addresses available in an alternative way.

That’s all assuming they’re treated as housenumbers rather than units though, which might not be best even if they do have official_addr:housenumber.

Not entirely sure what you mean with this, but feel free to elaborate if it’s still relevant after the above added. context.

But that’s just what seems logical to me from across the channel.

Appreciated.