Proposal talk:AreaAddress

unnecessary relation?

The proposal does not explain why a relation is necessary here. What exactly is the problem with using something like addr:area=name of the area on the houses, and name=name of the area on the area (multi)polygon? --Tordanik 18:52, 11 April 2012 (BST)

I don't see the need either. Of course, I don't even understand the need for an associated address. I would just drop both relations. Map the areas as they are and set the correct names in addr:street=*, that's it. What is the benefit of additional relations here? --Marl 09:23, 21 April 2012 (BST)

Alternative Solution

The use of relations for addresses has pretty much been superseded by the Karlsruhe Scheme (addr=*). But I agree that there is a need to tag "street names" that are not highways. Other examples are allotments and small islands with no roads on them. But all examples I can think of should be mapped separately anyway (using landuse=*, natural=*, an area highway=* or the like). Why not just add a new tag with the "street name" to those? E.g. street_name=Frosch --Elhaard 16:26, 5 May 2012 (BST)

Or area_address=Frosch if you like. Note the use of underscore notation rather than CamelCase - in order to keep it in the same style as other tags. --Elhaard 13:37, 6 May 2012 (BST)