[OSM-talk] place=isolated_dwelling approved - adding to mapfeatures

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/5/21 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>:
> No reasons to stop this mess where in the past the place hierarchy was quite
> clear:
> city > town > village > hamlet > locality


this is actually not clear, because locality was long ago (or has ever
been) defined as uninhabited place, regardless the size of the feature
(so it falls in the category island and other
non-settlement-place-tags).


> and suburb as part of a city or town

that's the second part being not clear. If suburb (horrible word for
central places) is part of city or town, why not having also parts of
hamlets tagged explicity if they have their own name? Another
"problem" with suburb I see is that there is no distinction for
"official" (read administrative) places from ones that are only
subparts of administrative entities but with their own name.

I would like to be able, given the hypothetical situation that all
data is entered completely and correctly, to e.g. calculate the
population of Germany by summarizing all population-values of certain
place-tags (isolated_dwelling, hamlet, village, town, city) and
disregarding the rest (like suburb), which should already be included
in the ones mentioned above.

cheers,
Martin