[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Proposed Japan tagging/Places

[Satoshi IIDA]

Hello,

to: Sarah
Thank you for kindly feedback!
Please let me go back to the first question at a moment.

> "place=borough" or "place=region"
I prefer your "region" idea.
But unfortunately, Japan community already assigns "region" to a broader
area.
It is for an unit of several prefectures (admin_level=4), so it would be
placed in the middle of admin_level=2 and 3. (like: Kanto or Chubu and so
on)
But in this case, it would be the size of the middle of admin_level=6-7.

ref: Current JP structure table (Sorry in Japanese too...)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eAE72mjCLoJVGZo5qRhCYK22UxVQ8bpbQSU9ZLHq40o/edit#gid=0

Do you have suggestions for which duplicates with different sizes are
acceptable?

I found a "region:type" tag to define a more clear definition to the region
object.
Or is it better for us to change the usage of the current "region"?
It means current "Kanto region" to "Kanto states" and so on. JP is keeping
"state" as a reserved bit for future use.
(it is "reserved" so I do not prefer to use "state" in the Kanto region,
though. I think "state" is another concept of administration)

> "place=hamlet" you define as "Commonly-used local place names.".
> It is not clear, if you refer to a settlement here or to a generic place,
which might even be uninhabited.
We would like to use "hamlet" mainly for a small settlement, outside of the
addressing scheme which is defined by local governments/postal offices.
Those habitant settlements or areas have been named by local people for a
long time.
They are using it unofficially, so sometimes it has no clear border.
They are common, especially in the countryside/rural areas of Japan.

If the area is a sort of an abandoned settlement, it is better to set
"locality" instead, as you mentioned earlier.

Anyway, I think it is better to update the outline of the "hamlet" column
in the proposal page.


Best regards.



-- 
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyampire at gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220520/37d9e5c2/attachment.htm>