[Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements
mbranco2 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 15 11:35:00 UTC 2017
Martin began this thread after a discussion in the Italian List  .
Problem arise because we've official toponyms (they are used in addresses,
in scarcely inhabited areas, where roads have not an official name).
These toponyms are not strictly related to the (few) dispersed houses, but
also to the surrounding woods, meadows, fields, etc
There aren't official borders for these areas, so we'd use just only a
node, not a closed way to identify the zone.
To show an example, in this screenshot  you can read several toponyms
related to this area  : coloured dots are buildings with related toponym
being in their addresses.
You can find (several times) the same issue in the discussion page for
place=locality  : in my opinion, place=locality could resolve this issue
if we change "unpopulated place" with "unpopulated or scarcely inhabited
>* On Jun 14, 2017, at 11:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>> wrote:
*> >* Looking at the currently available place values, there are still
some gaps to fill. IMHO we should have something for dispersed
settlements / scattered settlements, as locality is for places where
the name doesn't refer to something inhabited.
*> >* Which term is better understood / used in the UK, dispersed
settlements or scattered settlements?
*> >* Other thoughts?
*> >* Cheers,
*>* Tagging mailing list
*>* Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging