[Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Mon Apr 15 22:11:50 UTC 2019
Can you give an example of one of these groups of named islands? If they
are close together and divided from other islands in the area, I would use
“archipelago”. And multipolygons should be used for any feature that
consists of several areas.
Islands always qualify as an area, so there’s no need to use an unusual
relation type (unless they are mapped as nodes and you don’t have good
enough imagery to map their coastlines yet)
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 5:57 AM Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>
> Joseph wrote:
> There is a request to render place=archipelago now (Issue #3394); I
> will look into it. It's only used 740 times, so it would help if more
> people start using the tag. It would certainly be useful here in
> (BTW, I would recommend tagging archipelagos as simple nodes or as
> multipolygon relations that include all of the islands. The wiki pages
> suggests using a "type=cluster" relation, but this would be hard to
> The groups of islands I mentioned to are not archipelagos but merely
> several islands sharing a name. The same logic applies to named groups of
> lakes, for example, Three Lakes (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6714525), which I tagged as a
> multipolygon. Lately, as a result of a discussion on this list, I've begun
> using type=group for this sort of feature. OSM Carto doesn't render either
> type=cluster or type=group multipolygons so many mappers will no doubt
> continue to use type=multipolygon for them.
> I'm willing to add a more specific tag for abandoned localities if we can
> decide exactly which one of the several alternatives is the best candidate.
> Of course, 99% of such places in Alaska cannot be inspected in person to
> decide if foundations and infrastructure exist because they are incredibly
> remote. One has only satellite imagery with which to envision what's on the
> ground. That's one reason I fall back to simply using the abandoned=yes tag.
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com>
>>> 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: ...
>>> Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150938807
>>> This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground
>>> any more (apart from a few racks)
>> I thought that the commoner lifecycle prefix was 'demolished' ?
>> I use 'disused' if the buildings are relatively well preserved and might
>> be rehabbed, 'abandoned' if they're ruined, 'demolished' if the buildings
>> are not standing but the settlement is still observable. Most of the ghost
>> settlements that I've visited have clearly visible building foundations,
>> stone walls separating fields, and road grades (which may be grown to
>> trees, but are still obviously artificially graded) and are thus
>> 'demolished.' (The ones on State land have likely had their buildings burnt
>> to discourage squatters.) Theymay also have formations like tannery vats,
>> mine shafts, mill races or cellar holes.
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8690778427 is typical of
>> 'demolished' - the road has mature trees standing in it and is not passable
>> for any distance by anything on wheels, but the fact that the area was once
>> a settlement is obvious. (I've found the remains of a mill, a tannery, and
>> a forge in that former settlement, but have not been able to discover even
>> its name.)
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging