Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Validate against duplicate name/address tags #6189



None yet
7 participants
Copy link

commented Apr 15, 2019

Implements some of #6177

This is a bit of a work in progress as I don't know if it would be better to combine it with a more thorough validation process (although it works as is), but it checks whether there are duplicates in the current graph of various tags (at the moment just name and both addr:housenumber and addr:street together.)

Includes tests




This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 17, 2019

I think that the first example would be incorrect in 90% of all cases - chances are that you are just adding the other direction of a pre-existing road in OSM if you see this warning.

The second example, duplicate address warnings, looks great!

jguthrie100 added some commits Apr 17, 2019


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 26, 2019

Duplicated addresses aren't unusual and this pull request will lead to a large number of false positives. I fear that the validation rules is asking for trouble.

POIs often have addr:*=*tags even if multiple of them are located in the same building. There is no consensus whether this is good or bad. An editor should not enforce any point of view in this issue.

Addressing is difficult and different from country to country, from region to region. There are exemptions for all rules in that field. Duplicated addresses might be an error in many cases. An editor aiming to inexperienced users who cannot form their own opinion on difficult OSM issues, should avoid to issue warnings with a high rate of false positives because its users will blindly (they don't it better) follow the instructions in order to make the software happy.

There are a few ways to solve this issue:

  • Don't show duplicated addresses as errors if they intersect (e.g. POI node in building).
  • The error message explains that there are valid cases: "Multiple features have the same addresses. This might be an error but there are a lot of cases when duplicated addresses are fine. Ignore this message if you are unsure."
  • Hide validation errors with a too high rate of false positives for new users.
  • Disable the rule by default and enable it if the community in a country asks to do so. Then it will be there decision to accept the issues related with inexperienced users and false positives.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 27, 2019

Ok, going to close this since some local communities in OSM seem to like their addresses duplicated. #6177 is tagged as "considering" meaning, we might never do it.

@bhousel bhousel closed this Apr 27, 2019


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 30, 2019

I love this kind of checks... I think duplicate addresses are because users don't know how to use addr:unit and addr:door, and this would be a good way to learn.


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 10, 2019

You did not tell in which country you are using 'addr:unit and addr:door'.
They are not a typical part of a postal address in Germany, where I live. On the other hand, multiple businesses having the same postal address (addr:*) is typical, they are distinguished by their name. Thus I fully agree with Nakaner, to avoid flagging them as errors.


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 10, 2019

Interesting. I am from Chile. The case of same exact address here happens, but it is rare. Usually you can distinguish them with unit, when it is a different property or building, and door, when it is the same building, but different office numbers, for example. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.