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

Sun May 22 19:59:29 UTC 2022

Hi gyotoku810, Satoshi,

I'll answer both your mails together.

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 01:36:49AM +0900, gyotoku810 wrote:
> This proposal is the result of many discussions in the Japanese community,
> but we were pleased to have an international perspective.
> 	
> First of all, this proposal is an improvement of "Japan tagging" page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Japan_tagging ) and
> place=quarter/neighbourhood are already documentated to represent
> administrative place names under municipalities.
> 
> These place names are already mapped as place=quarter/neighbourhood by
> import ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:MLIT_ISJ/import2019_outline
> ), but there were some ambiguity with which tag to use, =quarter or
> =neighbourhood. The main purpose of the proposal is to resolve this
> confusion.

Okay, thank you for the clarification. This is exactly what I wanted to
know initially. When it is really mainly about cleaning up those tags,
the proposal is fine, of course.

On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 01:45:06PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
> > "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)

This is really difficult. We currently only have place=region for these
unspecific geographic features. At least I can't think of any other
alternative. So, 'region:type' is probably the best solution with in the
currently used place types.

There is also the option to invent a new value for place. But that's
more work.

> > "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.

Okay, interesting. That definitely counts as a hamlet.

Thanks again for bringing that up on the international mailing list. If
anything, I shall make a note for the Nominatim searcher to adapt the
country-specific handling of places accordingly.

Kind regards

Sarah

>·
> 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.

> 
> On 2022/05/18 23:30, Sarah Hoffmann via Tagging wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 08:05:26PM +0900, gyotoku810 wrote:
> > > > On 18 May 2022, at 09:00, Sarah Hoffmann via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > My main question is: will the proposal only affect city areas or
> > > > do you also plan to change tagging of place=town/village/hamlet
> > > > in the countryside?
> > > 
> > > This proposal affects all areas in Japan.
> > 
> > I find this problematic. The place=* tagging you
> > currently have on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Japan_tagging#Places
> > works well enough for software that processes OSM data globally.
> > Your new proposal will break software which is built according to the
> > global definition.
> 
> Which of place=suburb/quarter/neighbourhood/borough/hamlet breaks global
> order you said? place=quarter/neighbourhood are already mapped as I
> mentioned above and the impact of the change is small.
> 
> > For example,
> > place=suburb and place=neighbourhood are frequently used for parts of
> > larger rural villages. Conversely, you find place=village sometimes to
> > be used for parts of towns, when the town has historically developped
> > out of a set of close villages.
> 
> Not at all for Japan. There are no place=suburb in villages and no
> place=village in towns in Japan (a village and a town are parallel). But I
> know such usage exists in the world.
> 
> > So there is a lot of freedom in the usage of the tags. Still, they
> > should be used in a way that they reflect the settlement type, not the
> > type of administration.
> 
> What is the meaning of "settlement type"? I need detailed explanation.
> 
> > > We understand that the current use of place=* tags in Japan deviates from
> > > the Wiki description, but we think there is no other way to represent place
> > > names under municipalities.
> > 
> > Yes, there is. If you feel you need a different tagging, then you need
> > to invent your own Japan-specific tag. This can then be used in addition
> > to the globally defined tag without breaking anything.
> 
> It is easy to invent new tags suitable for the Japanese place name system,
> but then the problem of place=* tags will not be resolved.
> 
> Using Japan-specific tags break softwares that work globally. So, the
> Japanese community has made proper use of existing place=* tags (The same
> can be said about highways). Just like you said:
> > What normally happens is
> > every country looks at their specific situation and creates a recommendation
> > how to use the tags so that they come closest to the global defintion.
> > There is a tag border_type: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:border_type
> > This is used in some countries exactly for this purpose. The main
> > place=* tag corresponds to the global definition. The border_type tag is
> > then added to signal the administrative type of the place. Maybe this
> > could work for Japan, too?
> 
> As for boundary=administrative, admin_level=* is working properly for Japan.
> The border_type is not necessarily needed. It has nothing to do with
> representing a place name as a node.
> 
> gyotoku810
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging