[Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Clifford Snow clifford at snowandsnow.us
Sun Mar 27 18:50:21 UTC 2016

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:

> well, this didn't prevent 12% of mappers to add neighborhoods as areas
> anyway: http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/place=neighbourhood

The discussion was around neighborhoods that did not have a clear boundary,
not the majority that have clearly defined boundaries. I believe we should
add neighborhood boundaries that are clearly defined.

> Tagging large things as nodes clearly lacks important information
> (extent), and it makes nested stuff impossible (or requires relations
> rather than getting it for "free" with implicit spatial hierarchies)

I agree using polygons is far superior to nodes. The question I'm raising
is do these fuzzy areas belong in OSM. Using my example for the Cascadia
(Independence Area) a polygon with the boundary could be used to search for
features in the OSM database.


OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160327/7e68fd24/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list