Proposal talk:AssociatedAddress (new)

Spelling: associated_address instead of associatedAddress

Following the standard OSM spelling rules, the relation should be called type=associated_address or simply type=address. Yes, I know that associatedStreet exists, but that is pretty much the one exception from the rule. No reason to repeat that mistake. --Tordanik 11:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Thanks. I have taken note of your comment.--LLlypuk82 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, provide better description

People who are not really familiar with this problem will unlikely understand the whole situation from very brief description you gave. It is better to add some kind of comparison of an existing method and proposed method, including both tagging and data processing examples.

Another problem is that you've mentioned usage of "address node" as label positioning geometry, which is against the OSM fundamental principle of separation of data and representation. I'd recommend to avoid such role for it.--BushmanK (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

---

To be honest I must say that I tired. And I don't understand why my opponents give an examples which are not approved and actually do not work (and do not solve completely the tasks that I set ).--LLlypuk82 (talk)