[Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

Lionel Giard lionel.giard at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 12:38:28 UTC 2020


If we take the key "place=*", all the values are only related to toponym :
place=city/town/village/neighbourhood/locality/... They all are just the
name of a location of some type (either defined by population or other
aspect like an ocean/sea/...). So the place=square tag seems to be the only
one that both indicate a location with a name (or not) and a feature. If we
were only using place=square to indicate the name of a location categorized
as a "square", then, maybe we do need another tag just to describe what the
open area is... (man_made=square for example) ? And by using place=square
only for naming a location, it can probably be on a polygon with other tag
without problem (it is just indicating the toponym and the area covered -
as it can be useful for routing), or on a node (like we do for other
place=* tag).

Regards,
Lionel

Le mar. 24 mars 2020 à 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
a écrit :

> Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 03:33 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>:
>
>> > Place=square was defined until 3 days ago as “a
>> > named square” and “a town or village square which is an open space
>> common in
>> > urban centres, typically crossed by streets but can also be a pedestrian
>> > area or more rarely green areas.”
>> >
>> > I am perfectly fine with this documented definition
>>
>> But the first part wasn't a definition. "A named square" is not a
>> defintion at all, since the word "square" is undefined.
>
>
>
> is it? The English wikipedia has an article "Town square"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_square and tries to give a definition
> (although the article is in bad shape and also has a warning that the
> affirmations are not backed by citations, and it links to articles in other
> languages which have different definitions, and which may be partial, due
> to these other languages having several similar concepts). Also the article
> states that "Other names for *town square* are *civic center
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_center>*, *city square*, *urban
> square*, *market square <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_square>*, *public
> square*, *piazza <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza>*, *plaza
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza>*, and *town green*." but these are
> not all 1:1 synonymous.
>
> Oxfordlearnersdictionary also has a definition: " [countable] an open
> area in a town, usually with four sides, surrounded by buildings"
>
> We did not so far define the words "street" or "road". It is taken as
> granted in the highway tag definitions that you know what it is.
>
>
>
>> If this means
>> "a feature that includes the word "square" in the name" as the page
>> suggested back in 2015-2016 this is even worse, since it is completely
>> culturally determined. I would be justified to tag all "alun-alun"
>> feature as squares, even those that are 100% soccer pitch now, and
>> those function as a walled palace garden.
>>
>
>
> whether and how many of all objects with "square" (and similar) in the
> name are actually the kind of object we are tagging with place=square will
> likely depend on the culture and language. If this works for Italy with all
> (or almost) piazza, piazzale, piazzetta, largo, campo, it does not imply it
> works in Indonesia as well.
>
>
>
>> The first second definition was a little better: " an open space
>> common in urban centres..."
>>
>
>
> yes, but it implies a certain kind of urbanism, in particular how centers
> and peripherical areas look like, and I believe it is not universally
> applicable (if it is intended to exclude squares in the outskirts).
>
>
>
>> Though this could be used for a leisure=pitch or leisure=park or
>> leisure=garden or an amenity=parking, or a fenced-off roundabout
>> etc...
>>
>
>
> no, the place=square can hardly be the same area as a leisure=pitch or
> leisure=park. You won't have the park cover the whole area and end at the
> buildings, there'll be a way or street along the buildings.
>
>
>>
>> But then the second half of the definition offers several more
>> possibilitiies:
>> "typically crossed by streets" - That one is unclear, does it mean a
>> street intersection/ road junction? Most mapped place=squares are NOT
>> crossed by streets, it turns out.
>>
>
>
> it may depend how you define "street" and "crossed". I guess it includes
> pedestrian streets, and crossed may also be seen as "at the borders". If
> you read it like this, there won't be many examples that do not fit (can
> you post one?).
>
>
>
>>
>> "But can also be a pedestria area or more rarely green areas.”
>>
>> A highway=pedestrian area is certainly a type of open public space, so
>> that is fine, and the most classic squares fit that definition.
>>
>
>
> although not all pedestrian areas are squares. It could also be a parking
> (sadly).
>
>
>>
>> But what does "more rarely green areas" mean? Is a green area just a
>> flat, mowed lawn, or can it be an elaborate garden with trees, knolls,
>> ponds? Can it be a leisure=pitch? Can it be a park with trees, picnic
>> areas?
>>
>
>
> I believe it refers to the surface. It the square must not necessarily be
> a hardscape.
>
>
>
>>
>> I don't think that is what was intended: generally a "square" seems to
>> be designed to be used for events or for people to congregate, at
>> least historically, so if it is green, it is just grass, not trees,
>> flowers, shrubs, gardens, water features, etc, else it's a park or
>> garden.
>>
>
>
> It may have changed the purpose, but still functionally, architectonically
> be a square. I agree with the notion that squares are made to stay, while
> streets are made to walk/drive. There mustn't be "events", and many of them
> are made to make a building stand out more (e.g. a square in front of a
> castle or church).
>
>
>
>>
>> That's whey the prior definition is inadequate: it is non-orthagonal,
>> it can include many types of features, and is impossible to translate
>> into different cultures.
>
>
>
> agreed, it wasn't a good definition before (it did not explain to someone
> unfamiliar with the concept, when to apply the tag), but at least it didn't
> exclude some kinds of squares by setting criterions that seem not
> universally shared.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200324/0ca03600/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list