[Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

Anton Klim tohaklim at gmail.com
Tue Apr 16 07:50:10 UTC 2019

Deprecating a tag because it was misused would remove quite a lot of current osm tagging. 
I also think some of the examples you mention cannot be re-tagged without some proper research that’s not going to happen (do the locals call that place %name% because it was a crosssroads at some point or because there was a village nearby? Who knows). 
Using a lifecycle prefix is definitely a good idea, but there is simply no data to determine what to prefix in some cases. By all means, if one could add a more specific tag they should, but localities are a thing and place=locality can be used correctly. 

But it’s osm, so any tag you like, huh?


> 16/04/2019, 8:38, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> написал(а):
> We recently discussed place=locality, and I now believe this tag
> should be avoided, and perhaps deprecated.
> To summarize, most of these features were added in North America from
> GNIS imports; almost 20% are in Alaska alone (>200,000!), and they
> were used for all sorts of features that are not populated places:
> abandoned hamlets, former mining camps, construction sites, railroad
> and highway junctions, former locations of Native Alaskan villages,
> etc.
> Martin and Warin suggested to use abandoned:place=* for those which
> were former place=hamlet, =village, isolated_dwelling, etc.
> Several people mentioned ways they have used this tag for a "place
> without population that has a name:" for example, to tag crossroads,
> hills, a wood, a field, a pair islands, a group of a few lakes, an
> informal landmark / route mark, an abandoned airstrip, a proposed
> airstrip, etc.
> However, most of these suggested uses have other tags that could be
> more specific
> crossroads: highway=junction
> railway junction: railway=junction
> hill: natural=peak or natural=ridge or natural=hill
> wood: natural=wood
> field: landuse=farmland or =meadow
> islands: place=archipelago
> airstrip: proposed:aerodrome=airstrip + abandoned=yes;
> abandoned:aerodome=airstrip
> Two of the examples need new tags created:
> 3 lakes with a name: needs a new tag, perhaps natural=lake_group as a
> multipolygon relation?
> An informal landmark (eg an old car wheel up on a tree) - perhaps
> there is something for this already.
> I believe that place=locality was a reasonable idea when it was
> proposed in 2007, and few tags had been developed. But now, over 11
> years later, we have more specific tags for almost everything that is
> currently tagged this way.
> My suggestion: check out all the features tagged with place=locality
> in your area. If they have a more specific tag or a more precise tag
> can be added, please remove the place=locality tag.
> (If this results in the name no longer rendering in the
> Openstreetmap-carto, please check the list of issues and add a comment
> if you think that the feature should have a name label rendered on a
> general map: http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues
> )
> Joseph
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list