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

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:38:23 +0100 (CET)
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> 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?

Rare, but not unheard of.

For a transient example, I briefly lived in
the town of "we don't want to be part of Renton", population 10,000 (the
decision to incorporate pre-dated any consensus on a name; they've
since settled on "Newcastle").

For a smaller but longer-lived example, there's a very place-looking
cluster of buildings (estimated permanent population: 100) at
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.3345213,-117.6710509,1281m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
that doesn't have a name on any map I've looked at.

-- 
Mark