noaddress layer on

Posted by SimonPoole on 5 December 2012 in English (English)

I've added a 2nd layer to that highlights building outlines for buildings that have neither addr:housenumber or addr:housename tagged and don't have a node with such tags inside or on the outline.

Minor buildings (hut, garage, garages, rood, terrace, greenhouse and shed) are currently rendered in orange, however I may suppress them completely in the future.

The check for a node in or on the building outline is computationally rather expensive leading to the layer not being as fast as the noname one. Zoom 0-12 are regularly re-rendered in batch mode.

Naturally in some areas it is common to not have building specific address information, we are currently missing tagging to suppress such false positives. I'm planning on adding support for addr:interpolation and some further addr tags that are not so common. If you have any susgestions please leave a comment.

Update 2012-12-06

Added support for addr:conscriptionnumber, addr:full and addr:interpolation. Note that this currently makes the layer substantially slower at lower zoom levels.

noaddress layer example

Comment from EdLoach on 5 December 2012 at 14:30

Hi Simon,

I mentioned the layer to a local mapper who checked stuff they'd mapped and gave me examples of this pub where the postal name is the pub name. Should the pub name be put in both name and addr:housename fields in such a case?

Another question they raised was regarding farm buildings (barns, etc) which are part of a site relation which I notice the wiki shows as Proposed and Abandoned, even though the tag page shows over 133,000 such relations. In this case the address would probably go either on the relation or the way/multipolygon relation with role perimeter.

Something similar applies to school buildings where the address is on the amenity=school area rather than the individual buildings within the area.

But it is still a useful tool to check buildings without addresses.



Comment from aseerel4c26 on 5 December 2012 at 15:30

Thank you Simon! :-) That looks useful.

Here is a clickable link for other readers:

Comment from SimonPoole on 6 December 2012 at 08:08


First question: not easy to answer and I don't have a strong opionion on if it makes sense to duplicate the information.

Wrt site relations: currently that would seem to be very expensive to implement, I will have a look at it asap.


Comment from DaCor on 18 March 2013 at 01:12


Love your noname map and use it regularly to check on work I've done in case I missed something and need to go back and resurvey.

I have a question though, why does the noaddress layer highlight landuse=residential as having a missing address?

See here as an example

Is it a case that the area is highlighted if there is nothing inside the area with addressing information? That is how it appears to me, just want to clarify.

If that's the case, then its immensely useful and thank you!

Comment from SimonPoole on 18 March 2013 at 10:03

Hi DaCor

You are correct it is a new feature that hasn't been "announced" yet. There will be a further "has_address" layer too. Right now, i'm pre-rendering some of the tiles and am working on getting a coupel of technical issues resolved, as soon as that has happened I'll write a blog post.


Comment from DaCor on 19 March 2013 at 00:28

Nice one, can't wait!

Login to leave a comment