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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Apr 16 08:22:43 UTC 2019


On 16/04/19 17:38, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> 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.

The key place is not only for populated places e.g.

place=island - some of these are not populated...

place=islet - many of these are not populated...

place=sea

place=ocean


>
> 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;

I don't think that fits the OSM use of the key proposed, I believe that is for a feature that is likely to be built..
in this particular case it was proposed but is now not proposed yet people still use the name.
OHM is the place to put history - not OSM, so proposed:aerodrome=airstrip with the start and end dates can go there...
but the name should remain in OSM as that is still 'in use'.

> 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.

There is all ready ... place=locality : A named place that has no population.!!!

>
> 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.

But not for 'A named place that has no population'. Which is what  place=locality is mean for.

>
> 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.

I have changed some tags from  place=hamlet/village to place=locality as I know that there has never ever been a population there ...

How many of these exist in 'your' area? Have you checked them and changed those appropriately?

The example I gave is one that cannot be migrated to a better tag .. as there is not other tag for it.
I have others too .. but I don't know the story behind them. Never the less they are in use as local names used for navigation.
I would object strongly to there removal.




More information about the Tagging mailing list