[OSM-talk] A post box called Breuningsweiler
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk
Fri May 25 13:10:40 BST 2007
David Earl [mailto:david at frankieandshadow.com] wrote:
>Sent: 25 May 2007 12:27 PM
>To: Andy Robinson; 'OSM'
>Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] A post box called Breuningsweiler
>> I'm just been using out-of-copyright 1:25,000 mapping to do a test area
>> input that includes a lot of named POI data (nodes) covering the sort of
>> things you see on traditional mapping, such as named farms,
>> woods, coppices,
>> named cottages and Halls, named collieries and all that sort of stuff. In
>> most cases these seem best annotated under the "place" and "name" tags so
>> I've been doing the following (examples):
>> place=farm, name=Blah Farm
>> place=building, name=Blah Hall or Blah Cottages
>> place=wood, name=Blah Wood or Blah Coppice
>> place=works, name=Blah Colliery (Dis)
>> All these and other examples seem to sit better under the place tag than
>> anything else, they are all there on the original map to define a place
>> its name and location and are just smaller or more specific place tags
>> in my view a logical lower extension of the city/town/village/hamlet.....
>This seems perverse to me when there are already tags for farms
>(landuse=farm), woods(natural=wood or landuse=forest), works
>(landuse=industrial) and so on. place is intended for conurbations.
>shouldn't have place, but most do because whoever imported them all in bulk
>did that throughout.
There is a distinct difference here. If I create a way around a farm or
whatever its logical to label it landuse. However on the whole what I am
defining in these POI's is part of a location, an address. These are nodes
giving the name of a place or feature, they are not landuse or indeed in
many instances natural either.
>Both mapnik and osmarender render woods, but they need the natural=wood to
>do so. Are you saying you've created areas of natural=wood and a node
>it place=wood? Even so natural=wood is defined to apply to nodes as well;
If I get around to creating the enclosed wood then yes I'd tag it as
landuse. There might still be a benefit of maintaining the node with the
name but I agree that level of duplication shouldn't really be necessary.
>principle either of them should be able to render the name if given, but
>they won't be looking for place=wood in order to render a name (unless a
>renderer sets a default name renderign style for place nodes it doesn't
That would seem the simplest way of picking up map annotations. It's a lot
easier of course to do it under one subset that under a whole set of
>Why go against the grain and make it harder for the data consumers?
>(Likewise, I've noticed quite a number of highway=minor in the Norwich
>again why not go with the flow?)
Not sure I follow you here. I'm not aware I've ever used highway=minor for
More information about the talk