[Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Lionel Giard]

In Belgium (where i map), we generally use this tag for place without
population that have a name ("lieu-dit" in french (look at this wikipedia
article) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieu-dit>), like a crossroads (like
"Carrefour de la Justice" (literally "crossroads of justice")), a field, a
part of a forest or some hills. It is often very old names that are shown
on various topographic map (generally the name is the same than in the
past, as we can see them on maps from 1700 ...) and it is really useful to
locate ourself.

Thus i would not limit to the sub-type that you propose (which are only
considering "abandoned places") because there are a lot of cases where they
were never anybody there (we can sometimes find that the crossroads are
inside a hamlet but the crossoroads itself is not inhabited). Also,
locality=junction isn't related to railway (if you look at example, it is
bridges
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/52259975#map=17/52.77889/-6.48665> or
crossroads <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/262804588>). So i would use
add sub-type for all those "never inhabited places".

Lionel

Le lun. 15 avr. 2019 à 03:57, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
a écrit :

> Currently place=locality is main in the database from imports, and it
> is also used as a way to tag a feature which is not currently rendered
> by most map renders so that the name will show.
>
> Since place=locality was originally defined as "a named place that has
> no population" it's easy to see how this (mis)use came about.
>
> There are certainly places that really should be tagged place=locality.
>
> The wiki mentions places that used to have a population, but are not
> longer inhabited; eg "ghost towns" and railway junctions in the USA.
> This features are often still shown on other maps, and may still have
> a sign that shows the location, but even if they are only know by
> local knowledge they may be useful for orientation.
>
> For example, the locations of old mining camps by the river were still
> used by fire fighters and police to specify locations of incidents in
> my home area in rural California.
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place=locality
>
> What we need is a way to distinguish the correctly-tagged features and
> those that are double-tagging for rendering. I would suggest that a
> subtag such as "locality=*" could be useful.
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/locality#values
>
> This tag is already used 65,000 times, but actually on boundaries; it
> was used for an import in Ireland with the values locality=townland
> and locality=subtownland. (These seem to be incorrect usages, because
> townlands seem to be populated places)
>
> Besides the import, it's been used 26 times with locality=junction
> (which could also be tagged railway=junction
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Djunction)? The other
> values look incorrect; they are all populated places, or backwards
> (locality=place).
>
> So I think the key "locality=*" could be used to specify the type of
> locality. This would allow database users to decide which localities
> to render, out of the 1.3 million
>
> The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
> populated place but no longer has a population.
>
> Ideas for the value?
>
> locality=ghost_town seems too American
>
> locality=formerly_inhabited could work but is rather wordy
>
> locality=abandoned_farm or =abandoned_hamlet might work?
>
> Are there other types of valid localities which cannot be better
> described with a different tag, other than former inhabited places?
>
> -Joseph
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190415/c7d45270/attachment-0001.html>