[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Mon Jun 19 13:15:57 UTC 2017


Hi,

On 06/18/2017 06:59 PM, Joachim wrote:
> * The extend of a settlement is not explicitly defined
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_geography). This might lead
> to disputes

Then we shouldn't map it.

> For the first two points I present a solution. For the third I thrust
> national/local mappers to converge.

I think that this is a bad idea. We have enough fighting over a matter
that should be as clear-cut as administrative boundaries. Adding another
layer to that will only create more fighting over whether something "is
part of" something else. For example, an old village that has long since
been assimilated by the big city and retains its name as a city quarter
might suddenly declare not being part of the "city place area", which
will only confuse the hell out of everybody. And I'm not even starting
to talk about the usual fights between nationalists/patriots of all
kinds over what should be called how.

If you can't point to a sign on the ground, don't map topoynms.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



More information about the Tagging mailing list