[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 19 June 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> *Ideally* verified on the ground, but yes, other means of
> verifiability can be acceptable. However, the OP in this case
> explicitly said that "The extent of a settlement is not explicitly
> defined" which certainly thwarts *any* kind of verification, doesn't
> it?

Not necessarily, this is why i asked for the practical meaning of "the 
extend of a settlement".

As i read it "not explicitly defined" just means it is not directly 
observable on the ground but that does not necessarily mean it is not 
practically verifiable.  To give an abstract example - you could for 
example implicitly define a city area as the sum of all points on the 
surface that are closer to this city centre than to any other city 
centre.  This would not make much sense and it would make even less 
sense to map this as an area but this is theoretically a well defined 
concept of a city area that is not explicitly defined.

Regarding names of geographic features - these are rarely verifiable on 
the ground, especially for natural objects, verifiability here often is 
equivalent to "you get consistent answers if you ask locals about the 
name of this feature".

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/