Proposal talk:AddrN (2012)
This proposal is better solved by relation - one relation for each address of an object with several addresses. --Skippern 05:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain, how this relation should look like? Personally, I dislike using relations for very small things, like single houses, as they make editing very cumbersome.
addr2:... sounds nice to me, but it might get out of hand if there are more than two addresses. And think about old addresses, that might be used for orientation purposes, too: E.g. in Georgia, Many roads got renamed, but the old names are more in use by locals than the new names; in fact noone really knows the new names. How to cover that? old_addr{n+1}:?
Is there a good middle way between a relation and addr1,2,3,n:? --Moszkva ter 09:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Russians did it first
It is a common situation in Russia, and we have several ways to tag it: RU:Key:addr#Угловые дома (you'll probably have to use Google Translate). As for me, I prefer "truth on the ground" way: "N/M" when it's on a plate, two different address nodes otherwise. --Zverik 06:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- There's even a (largely) English language proposal at addrN. As that proposal is more than one year older than this one and both are in draft state, I suggest marking this (i.e. SamuelLB's) proposal as a duplicate. --Fkv (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Zverik: Ru:Key:addr should only be a translation of the english page Key:addr. Documenting tags on a russian language page only does not seem useful, because 7000000000 non-russians will not read it. Please document it on the english page too, or support a proposal like this one. --Fkv (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Real life examples
Added a photo with a real life example to illustrate the addr{n}-issue. If someone has a more "international" example, feel free to change it ;) --Moszkva ter 11:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Relations
How to deal with relations? Add a type=associatedStreet2?--Vanuan (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
proposal status
This proposal is still a draft. Please make it RFC. It's high time. --Fkv (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, no more need to do so, because AddrN and/or Proposed Features/addrN are equivalent and ongoing. I'll change the status of this proposal to "obsoleted" in conformance to Proposal process#Abandoned, Canceled, Obsoleted, Undefined. --Fkv (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)