[Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?
voschix at gmail.com
Mon Apr 15 16:48:02 UTC 2019
A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned
railways (and smilar),
a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ...
a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ...
or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...
This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground any
more (apart from a few racks)
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 17:25, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are named localities that have only the most tenuous of
> identifiable features.
> One example that I've visited is 'Sled Harbor'. It never had a
> population. It was just a place where the woods were open enough that
> loggers could store their sleds there in the summer. It's now right at
> the boundary between protected wilderness and International Paper
> land. Since there's an easement for the public to travel International
> Paper's road (well, logging track), it's the farthest that one can
> lawfully drive (well, force passage with a 4WD, when there isn't deep
> snow or mud) to pick up or drop off a party. Because of this, hikers
> still use the name. But it's really just a point where the
> highway=track crosses into the boundary=protected_area. There's no
> formal parking. It isn't the endpoint of the track, since it continues
> in farther to abandoned logging camps dating from before the state
> owned the Jessup River parcel. All that there is there is a sign
> saying something like, "no motor vehicles beyond this point." It is
> still a place with a name.
> It did come in from GNIS as 'populated place,' which it is not and
> never was. Still, I don't see a good alternative to place=location for
> it, so I'm definitely against the idea of removing locations
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging