[Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead
johnw at mac.com
Thu Apr 18 01:28:15 UTC 2019
The only place I remember using locality is where a new very large (roughly 5x5KM) feature has been created by completely removing the original hamlet and building a very large flood control feature made of several individually named features, which also contain parks, golf courses, airstrips and commercial works. together, they make up a named place that is not able to be defined as a city of any type, nor one of the individual features. it is much larger than the park, the reservoir, the flood control basins, the cycling roads, the camping and fishing areas, the rice field art.
it is the Watarase flood control area.
someone tried to map it as a village and I changed it to locality. the mapping method is probably wrong, but I think the sprit of Locality is correct.
all the examples you previously gave is for when an area’s name grows beyond the feature that named it - but it should still be named by that thing.
but when the thing is gone, (a rail line stop that is no longer there), or is a collection of larger items that get named like a city or a village - yet have zero residents - seems like a good use for locality to me.
> On Apr 18, 2019, at 3:33 AM, Mark Wagner <mark+osm at carnildo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:19:52 +0900
> Joseph Eisenberg <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
>> Out of the remaining 47 nodes, several have names that suggest they
>> should have other tags:
>> - 8 are named “* Beach” (=> natural=beach)
>> - 2 “* Point” (natural=cape or natural=peninsula)
>> - 2 road junctions: “Four Corners” and “Old Saddle Road Junction”
>> - 1 may be a lake (“Green Lake”) (natural=water water=lake)
> I checked the local situation, and found the following:
> Spring Valley: is it a valley? No, it's a former rural railway stop.
> Hutton Settlement: is it a hamlet? No, it's an orphanage.
> Hazelwood: is it a forest? No, it's a former hamlet.
> Ohio Junction: Is it a highway junction? No, it's where the
> century-abandoned Ohio Match railway line met what is now the Union
> Pacific railway line.
> My point is that you can't tell what sort of thing something is from
> its name (or worse, from a translation of its name).
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging