[Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead
61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Apr 17 06:58:05 UTC 2019
On 17/04/19 15:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 12:21, Joseph Eisenberg
> <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com <mailto:joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I have reviewed all the features tagged as place=locality in 2 places
> in the USA and 2 in Europe, and found that 3 out of 4, place=locality
> is usually used for features that could be tagged with a more specific
> Thanks for your extremely detailed research Joseph!
> Have just done some checking around our area & found that a lot of the
> place=locality listings should probably be =suburb or =neighbourhood
> (& a lot of them were done by me, so I'll have to go in & fix them all!).
> Couple to get an opinion on though, please.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4313816641#map=14/-28.1502/153.3205 is
> Austinville, which is the area located along the length of Austinville
> Road. Austinville is a valid locality name, but there is no actual
> spot you can point to & say that's Austinville - there are no shops,
> petrol station etc, only houses / farms & a Community Hall.
> What would it be if it's not a =locality? =village / hamlet / suburb /
> Same thing for Springbrook:
> which is the area on top of Springbrook Mountain. Once again, fairly
> sparsely populated - maybe 500?, but no distinct centre of town,
> except one general store, a Primary School & a handful of cafe's.
> There are a few others around that are similar - they have a
> population, but there are only 100 - 200 people living in an area of
> 200+ sq k - seems way to sparse to be labelled as village or anything
Hamlets too me.
If it has a store, cafes and a school probably a village? Petrol?
Does look like place=locality has been a catch all for when mappers did
not know of another more detailed tag.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging