[OSM-talk] place=hamlet in cities

[Dave F]

Have you been in contact with the two contributors to see if they can 
revoke/reupload?
I presume it came from a database. If it's still available it can be 
amended as required.

DaveF

On 17/01/2018 23:33, Kevin Broderick wrote:
> In Annapolis, Maryland, for instance:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/158283000
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/157577529
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150949243
>
> All of the points for which I've reviewed the history were created ten 
> years ago, edited nine years ago, by the same accounts, and have not 
> been updated since.
>
> It seems the same issue was brought up on the forum a couple of years 
> ago (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53057), and the 
> suggestion was that landuse polygons were probably most appropriate, 
> and place=subdivision was next-best. I don't think I can effectively 
> armchair-map landuse in cities, but hamlets in densely populated areas 
> clearly don't meet the wiki definition (and, I'd argue, are distinct 
> on-the-ground situations; an isolated hamlet in a rural area is very 
> different than an urban neighbourhood or subdivision). I'm leaning 
> towards place=neighbourhood as being more correct than place=hamlet, 
> although it clearly leaves room for improvement in the form of proper 
> landuse polygons and local knowledge re: names.
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     can you post some examples?
>
>
>     cheers,
>     Martin
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Kevin Broderick
> ktb at kevinbroderick.com <mailto:ktb at kevinbroderick.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20180117/29eb39d7/attachment.html>