[Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?
daveswarthout at gmail.com
Mon Apr 15 09:33:09 UTC 2019
As a mapper in Alaska, I rely heavily upon the USGS Topographic map layer
to provide names for geographic features. Alaska has many places that
perfectly fit the definition Warin provided from the Wiki:
*All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger areas
of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for places that
have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any geographic feature or
population centre that could be used to attach a name tag to. *
Given Alaska's gold mining history, I encounter such places all the time.
There are countless old settlements, gold mining camps, road building
camps, airstrips, and even Native American villages scattered around our
immense state. Most are indeed abandoned and sometimes I add abandoned=yes
to the tags, especially if there is no longer any sign of habitation
visible on satellite imagery.
An Overpass query returned almost 190,000 nodes along with 417 ways and 46
relations tagged as place=locality, that are located in Alaska.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 3:34 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> As an example of a locality that has never had a population
> *The Wheel* (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by
> bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.
> No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a
> navigational feature.
> Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too.
> n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:
> From the original start of place=locality
> *All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger
> areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for
> places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any
> geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a name
> tag to. *
> That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had
> population, or places that did not have a population.
> But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged
> disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city
> I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to use'
> with the others there.
> On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
> The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
> populated place but no longer has a population.
> I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag definition
> as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a settlement or
> dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is living around there, it
> means this name is not for an inhabited place). A generic tag for a place
> name/ toponym, to be used where no specific tag has yet been developed.
> (e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain peaks,
> wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so we don’t use
> locality for them)
> I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main tag
> might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it depends
> on the actually proposed values.
> For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as
> which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more
> frequent than any “ghost” variations.
> Cheers, Martin
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging