[Tagging] RFC: place=neighbourhood

Josh Doe josh at joshdoe.com
Wed Aug 31 13:25:30 BST 2011


On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:43 AM, John F. Eldredge <john at jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> "Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>
>> On 31/08/2011 02:04, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>> > I encourage use of this type of tag /primarily/ on /nodes/.
>> > The boundaries in most case are far too fluid to use this on areas.
>>
>> I tend to agree with Bryce. Quite often in the UK there are
>> disagreements where suburbs/neighbourhoods boundaries occur.
>> There's also boundary creep
>
> when residents can address their property
>> as
>> being in an adjacent area when it's perceived to be a bit posher.
>>
>> I wish to reiterate that a polygon tagged as place/boundary should not
>>
>> be sub-tagged as landuse=residential.
>>
>> Glad to see we're using the British spelling of neighbourhood. Some
>> mappers state-side appear not to like the use of the letter U.
>>
>> Dave F.
>>
>
> The same situations occur in the USA.  Neighborhood names can also shift over time.  My neighborhood shows up on maps as "Murray Heights", probably dating back to the original real-estate development in the 1950's.  In the 19 years I have lived here, I have never heard anyone call it by that name, but I have heard it referred to by the names of the two larger, adjacent neighborhoods.

But also in the USA we have subdivisions and master planned
communities, all of which have very well defined boundaries, which may
include common areas for trails, playgrounds, etc. For my region you
can see the boundary lines on tax maps, so I would map these as areas.
So we certainly need to allow for both.
-Josh



More information about the Tagging mailing list