[Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements
Javier Sánchez Portero
javiersanp at gmail.com
Fri Jun 16 07:42:10 UTC 2017
I would like to say that here, in Spain, we are in the same case. The
goverment office for population census give in  for each unit
(settlement) two values refering to the nucleus population and to the
dispersed population. Very frequently, there are units with only dispersed
population and no central nucleus. They usually correspond to an area with
a mix of residential and agricultural landuses with disperse buildings that
receives a common name.
Any of the two proposals, a new tag or change place=locality, will be fine.
Greetings, Javier Sanchez
2017-06-15 12:35 GMT+01:00 mbranco2 <mbranco2 at gmail.com>:
> 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
>  http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Cantone-contrada-
>  https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B65acVCG5NRQTVZ1MFg0aF9jSDQ
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.5461/7.9607
>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:place%3Dlocality
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging