[Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

Rory McCann rory at technomancy.org
Tue Mar 28 09:20:43 UTC 2017

I would suggest place=locality in this case, and have seen it used for
things like that (e.g. in Dublin, Ireland
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11675220 ).

The "unpopulated place" bit is (IMO) just to separate it from
town/village/hamlet etc, where you should be able to say "How many
people live here?". In your examples, the people probably say they live
in the city, rather than the place.

Informal places are fine. They satisfy the "on the ground rule". If you
go to the area, and ask 50 local people "How can I get to $PLACE?"
they'll probably all point you to the same place, ergo, it exists.

On 27.03.2017 18:12, 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?
> Cheers,
> Martin

More information about the Tagging mailing list