[Tagging] Relationship between place=* and name=*

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Tue Jan 26 18:38:23 UTC 2021




Jan 26, 2021, 19:26 by michael.montani at un.org:

>  >> a place that has no name should not have a place=* object.
>  
>  Yes, I definetely cannot understand this sentence. Could you elaborate? To me, only place=locality without name=* wouldn't make any sense, but place!=locality without name=* would be fine (even in case the name doesn't actually exist), because it's describing a human settlment. 
>
I can imagine a theorethical case of place=town that has no name, but is it something that
ever happened in the entire history of the world?

For some place=* types I would say that name is fundamental, for example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.07778&mlon=19.85830#map=17/50.07778/19.85830
is not taggable as place=isolated_dwelling simply because it has name

similarly place=city_block that is not named is inherently not taggable:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.06304&mlon=19.93777#map=18/50.06304/19.93777

place=suburb is inherently a distinct named part of the city, unnamed part of the city
is not a place=suburb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210126/3fee5e5d/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list