[Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Mar 2020, at 23:03, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
> 
>  (seriously, New York
> is not part of New England)


pardon my ignorance ;-)


> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474864229
> 
> does not use sqaure in the name and is not place=square.


it looks like a square on the map and “plaza” seems a synonym for square, or not?


Also this could be a square:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/39.29345/-76.60253
> 
> could be, but it could also just be a bit of grass.


agreed, it doesn’t appear to have a name related to a square.



> That's fine, but the point is not that we have zero things in the US
> that meet the Euro definition of square.  It is that we have many things
> that have square in the name that do not, and therefore that inhabitants
> of the US, or at least New England, do not relate at all to the EURO
> definition of square.
> 
> Here is the most well known thing named square in New England (six
> states):
> 
>  https://osm.org/go/ZfI4p0cT9--


looks like a square and has the name, which part of the definition does not fit?



> 
> Here's another example of someting with Square in the name that is not a
> place=square
> 
> https://osm.org/go/ZfI6Neyh0--


if we are speaking about the big parking triangle, I would see it as a square.

Cheers Martin