[Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Sep 30 12:05:39 BST 2011

2011/9/30 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> I am very much against using place=... for areas; if one wants to describe
> areas then one should use a boundary tag.

place was from the beginning defined for nodes as well as for areas.
Currently we (mapnik-OSM) are using external data (natural earth) for
the purpose these place areas could serve ( shapefile builtup_area ),
why shouldn't we try to get our own data for these? Btw.: one forth of
all place=city already are mapped as an area according to taginfo.

> If the proposed tags are used for nodes, then they don't require the above
> well-definedness and no hierarchy either.

If neighbourhoods were introduced then there would already be a
hierarchy (suburbs are bigger/higher then neighbourhoods). What's the
problem with introducing an intermediate level? How would a renderer
decide the importance of a certain node in respect to another if there
were hundreds of them (like in the Rome example)? If you don't need
the hierarchy, simply don't use it (or don't use 3 levels but only 2).
If you can't tell the limit of a neighbourhood (which btw. could
overlap, this won't be a problem) simply map it as a node. These
proposals don't force anyone to map places as areas.


More information about the Tagging mailing list