<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/4/20 6:59 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTBsSWHPaA367ktoDPOx_XtdiLghaqbouruorBEQRkkHyg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Di., 21. Apr. 2020 um
06:03 Uhr schrieb Warin <<a
href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>So by the definition I see no issue of having place
without a name tag, as long as it has a name :)
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</blockquote>
Errr If it has a name, tag it. If you don't know its name
then how do you know it is a place? </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>for example settlements. You might assume that a human
settlement has a name. Humans are like this, they assign names
to important (for them) things to facilitate communication
about them. On the other hand, without on the ground
knowledge, you will not be able to know the name. It is
completely logical that remote mappers will add hamlets,
villages (and in the past probably even towns) from aerial
imagery, without knowing their name.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
A remote mapper may map landuse=residential.. and that will render.
However a remote mapper may not be able to distinguish the
difference between a hamlet and a village particularly where
cultural difference exist. <br>
I would encourage the remote mapper to map landuse and leave the
place tag alone. <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>