[Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

Tue Apr 16 07:13:51 UTC 2019

The definition of archipelago (borrowed from wikipedia): "also known
as an island group or island chain: a named chain, cluster or group of
closely related islands."

A "group" usually has more than 2 members, but I can't think of an
objective cut-off point above 2 or 3. If "three's a crowd" it's also a
group, no?

So I think it's reasonable for mappers using place=archipelago to
describe a group of as few as 2 or 3 islands.

Similarly, if you use a tag like "natural=lake_group" to describe
named groups of interconnected lakes, this could be used for as few as
2 or 3 lakes, or as many as hundreds.

Using place=locality wouldn't work in this situation, since it's used
on a single node, and this is not helpful for describing 2 islands.

On 4/16/19, Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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”.
>
> Here's a small group of only two islands that is definitely not an
> archipelago, (as I understand that term, i.e., a "chain" of islands), and
> have one name to describe both islands, the Leland Islands:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20287799#map=14/58.6562/-135.9916
>
> In this case, the original mapper didn't tag them as a multipolygon but
> applied the place=island tag to the group as a node. I fact, he didn't even
> bother to redraw the horrible PGS coastline to separate them into
> individual islands.
>
> Alaska has hundreds of these island groups.
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:12 PM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>