[Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Apr 15 23:11:11 UTC 2019


On 15/04/19 22:04, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> That's an interesting example. Was the wheel put there as a landmark
> or route marker, or just for fun?

I don't know. I would assume as a landmark, to form a meeting place or a simple navigational aid. I don't even know if the present wheel is the original one.

>
> If the tag "place=locality" didn't exist, how would you tag this?

I'd ask here, that is one of the things this group is good for.

>
> On 4/15/19, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As an example of a locality that has never had a population
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320
>>
>> /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 <mailto:joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town
>>>>
>>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values
>>>>
>>>> which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more
>>>> frequent than any “ghost” variations.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Martin
>>>>
>>>>




More information about the Tagging mailing list