[Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
gdt at ir.bbn.com
Wed Aug 31 18:03:37 BST 2011
Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> writes:
> 2011/8/31 Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com>:
>> place names, which have more or less indistinct boundaries.
> just because they have no legal status does not mean there aren't
> distinct limits. Usually / often there are. There can be natural
> limits (cliffs, rivers, lakes, woods, ...) and man_made limits (big
> streets and motorways, railways, ...), the limits might also be soft
> or social / cultural / ethnic / economic / structural / typological /
> historic, ...
all true, but I'm not sure it matters.
>> In my area, towns have boundaries, and there are village centers that
>> have names like "West Acton" which have as far as I know no actual
>> boundaries and no legal standing.
> Try to analyze it. Where might "West Acton" end? Maybe you can come to
> a conclusion, it might also remain unclear for the moment where
> exactly it ends (try to look for limits like the above examples) but
> it will be clear for some parts that they definitely do form a part of
> "West Acton".
The point is that there is no agreed-upon value, and it's of no
consequence anyway. Different people can have different opinions, and
not be wrong - it's not (in general) possible to answer the question "am
I in West Acton right now". I have always had the impression that for
osm 'boundary' was inappropriate for things like this.
Our current node-based place= tagging for things like this (from
"Populated Places" items in the Geographic Names Information System)
seems pretty sensible.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Tagging