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

Marc_marc marc_marc at mailo.com
Wed Jan 27 09:54:57 UTC 2021


Le 26.01.21 à 19:17, Stefan Tauner a écrit :
> Why not map unnamed hamlets/isolated dwellings 
> with place=hamlet and noname=yes?

for isolated dwellings : what's the added value to add a place=isolated
dwellings noname=yes to every unamed isolated dwellings ?
the building or the landuse isn't enought ?
Given the definition of place=*, I have the impression that it's a bit
as if you wanted to add a natural=tree where there is no tree :
another tag is better

for hamlets, witch information would you like to add ?
if you want to say that there is a built-up area with what appear to be
residential, add the tag landuse that describes that ! this is better
than "there is a named place about the size of a hamlet but it has no name".
So in stead of "unamed named-place", landuse=residential is semantically
better, even if it means adding a sub-tag concerning the size (and I
have no objection to the use of the same criterion as place=*).+ a
subtag about the size, for ex residential=hamlet.


More information about the Tagging mailing list