[Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Mar 27 23:44:27 UTC 2017

On 28-Mar-17 03:12 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> In a recent changeset discussion, we have concluded that the best 
> thing might be asking here for opinions.
> This question is about toponyms. Usually these are tagged within the 
> place-tags (some might be found in "natural" etc.). Someone wants to 
> map named spots in the city, although there are no signs, these names 
> are commonly known in the town (one name derives for example from a 
> former shop at this spot, another name from a student's fraternity 
> nearby). These are points, not areas (in reality), and they do not 
> refer to settlement parts, so the tagging that is currently applied 
> (place=neighbourhood) doesn't seem right.
> One alternative could be place=locality. The wiki writes that locality 
> is about "unpopulated places", and I am not sure how to interpret 
> this. Is this to exclude settlements and their parts (i.e. the object 
> with this tag shall not represent something with population), or is it 
> about the location (outside vs. inside of a settlement)?
> Shall we make the wiki for place=locality clearer, or should we invent 
> a new place value for named spots inside populated areas?

I would leave place=locality alone.
If you need assistance you would not go to an unpopulated place, if 
locality is changed to include populated places then the map would be 
less clear.

The other problem is that this 'feature' may have no physical presence 
("a former shop at this spot") and so may not be easily verifiable .. 
possibly a history tag for these.. or dismantled ?

More information about the Tagging mailing list