[Tagging] Fuzzy areas again: should we have them or not?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 24. Dez. 2020 um 00:00 Uhr schrieb stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com
>:

> In my neck of the woods (California, USA), especially with what are known
> as "incorporated municipalities" (a city or town as a "body politic" as a
> distinct, limited entity), there are ALWAYS boundaries around these:  you
> are either in or out.  Again — and this is how it is in the USA (though I
> suspect something similar happens in the rest of the world) — such
> formalized cities / towns are distinct from "unincorporated areas" like
> villages, hamlets and smaller which are not "really" cities or towns (they
> are not incorporated under the laws of the state as an incorporated,
> charted... "city"), but are large enough to aggregate as a conurbation
> substantial enough so that the people who live there agree they are all
> members of a common "community."
>


I would think these are 2 different kinds of things. "incorporated
municipalities" seems to be administrative entities. This is what we map as
boundary=administrative, admin_level=* and it can (depending on the
situation and surely varying a lot across the world) contain a lot of land
that you would not consider to be part of a settlement (e.g. fields,
forests, meadows, lakes, wetlands, etc.).
Opposed to this, there is "place=city/town/village/hamlet" which is about
settlements, and I would not expect a place to contain fields and forests
(maybe exceptionally it can be possible, like "parks" will be part of a
settlement and can contain fields and forests, parks as in leisure=park).

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201224/b09d4dc0/attachment.htm>