[Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Colin Smale]

Hi Adam, 

The trouble with the UK is that places don't have clear boundaries... 

1) on the administrative side there are Civil Parishes, but large parts
of the country are "unparished" and some parishes contain multiple
"settlements" 

2) Royal Mail have completely different ideas, which are for their own
convenience and frequently conflict with the admin boundaries 

3) (my suspicion) people identify with their location using other
criteria - spontaneous answers to "what place do you live in" will show
a great variation "around the edges" of a place 

Not sure if the National Gazetteer (which focuses on addresses) tries to
define boundaries to named places...

All in all, if we have boundaries for places, they are going to have to
allow for fuzzy edges and overlaps. 

I suppose it all starts with "what do you mean by place"? 

//colin 

On 2017-02-10 00:48, Adam Snape wrote:

> Thanks Phil, 
> 
> Our local place mapping must be quite primitive, because few place boundaries are mapped. Do you mean that both the boundary and node should carry the place=tag? Where there isn't a clear boundary to the place, should the mapper estimate it? Glad to hear I've been putting the nodes in the right place anyway :) 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Adam 
> 
> -------------------- 
> 
> Normally places are mapped with both a boundary and node.
> 
> A node is certainly needed for navigation and should be somewhere sensible, normally the centre is where someone who puts the placename into a satnav would expect to end up, rather than a housing estate in the geographical centre.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint) 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20170210/ce1c9d98/attachment.html>