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

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Tue Apr 16 14:59:08 UTC 2019

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:26 AM Joseph Eisenberg
<joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> I apologize for being unnecessarily polemic by mentioning deprecation.
> I have no intention of investing time in such a proposal. I mainly
> wanted to suggest that the mappers on this mailing list think about
> using more specific tags, and check the features in their local area.

I agree that the tag is undesirable.

Nevertheless, there are named places that don't really have any
current feature to tag; it's a name that's persisted after the
corresponding feature no longer existed.

Another example I can think of is "Shattuck Clearing".  There was once
a ranger station there, but it was shut down in the 1960s and
demolished in the 1970s. There's really nothing remaining at its site.
The area, as the name suggests, had once been cleared, but it's grown
to trees. More than one trail meets there, so highway=junction is a
possibility, but it's a stretch. Equally a stretch is that there's a
guidepost and trail register (one of the mandatory ones - you're
required to sign the book when you pass one) at the site. Admittedly,
few non-hikers (and non-riders - it's accessible by horse) know the
name - it's about a 25-km walk to the nearest drivable road. The truck
trail has been disused since the ranger station was abandoned, and is
entirely impassable to anything on wheels. Nevertheless, the hikers,
skiers and riders who visit it do know the name, and it would raise no
eyebrows if one told another, "I'll leave a note in the register box
at Shattuck Clearing", or "we'll make camp somewhere near Shattuck
Clearing." Even though there's no clearing.

All of that history is really material for OHM. What it is *today* is
a locality.

It's an exception. There aren't many localities that wouldn't be
better tagged as something else. But there are some.

More information about the Tagging mailing list