Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Apr 2019, at 01:48, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Yes, that’s my recommendation. You just need a tag that is for groups of 
> lakes. 


multipolygon relations have different semantics, they “combine” the parts while 
the group is about an ensemble. With the group relation you do not “just need” 
a tag for groups of lakes, trees, stones, sculptures, summits, and any other 
group of things.


> 
> Archipelagos are mapped as multipolygon relations tagged with 
> place=archipelago, name= and type=multipolygon. This makes it easy to search 
> for, does not duplicate the place=island tags on each island, and can be 
> rendered with existing tools.


and doesn’t work for islands mapped as nodes. I agree that place=archipelago 
has a well defined meaning and helps to better understand what the object is 
about, especially those represented with a multipolygon relation, where it 
isn’t clear from the members what kind of thing the whole is.



> 
> A named group of lakes is similar to a water equivalent of an archipelago 
> (especially if they are not connected by rivers)


all groups of things are similar in this regard. The most meaningful property 
(the reason people would usually want to create an explicit relation between 
the parts, on top of the already existing implicit relation through proximity), 
is a common name that wo/mankind has given to it. 

For rendering support (or search / geocoding support), the group relation would 
probably depend on osm2pgsql supporting it. Derivative auxiliary geometry (and 
ontology, possibly size information) would be created in the osm2pgsql step, so 
the rendering team would not have to walk down the list of members to guess the 
domain of the thing, where it is or how big it is.

For humans looking at the data, a group of trees, lakes, dunes, tombs or 
sculptures will be easily understandable, computers may have a harder time but 
would usually not need to „understand“ it, for most applications a rough idea 
of the domain (e.g. key level meaning like “historic”, “natural”) and extent is 
all they actually need to know.

Cheers, Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> I might just as well use a multipolygon relation for them as I have in
the past.

Yes, that’s my recommendation. You just need a tag that is for groups of
lakes.

Archipelagos are mapped as multipolygon relations tagged with
place=archipelago, name= and type=multipolygon. This makes it easy to
search for, does not duplicate the place=island tags on each island, and
can be rendered with existing tools.

A named group of lakes is similar to a water equivalent of an archipelago
(especially if they are not connected by rivers)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:00 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I added some comments to the talk page of your "type=group" relation
> proposal.
>
> I would recommend simplifying the proposal to just be for groups of
> nodes, because there are already relations for multipolygons (areas)
>

I disagree. I think a group of areas is semantically different from a
multipolygon. If I will relate this to GeoJSON concepts, the first is like
a GeoJSON FeatureCollection where individual Features are
Polygons/MultiPolygons, while the second is just a GeoJSON MultiPolygon.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I added some comments to the talk page of your "type=group" relation proposal.

I would recommend simplifying the proposal to just be for groups of
nodes, because there are already relations for multipolygons (areas)
and linear ways (waterway, route, etc), and it will be very difficulty
for database users to handle multiple types of objects in one
relation.

Also, I believe every database object needs a feature tag.
Multipolygon relations work in this way too. This may mean creating
new tags specific to groups of objects in some cases, but it's not
good to depend on taking tags off of the members of the relation,
since this will often lead to invalid results and is not currently
supported by editors like ID and JOSM, or most database users.

On 4/16/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 16. Apr 2019, at 09:13, Joseph Eisenberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>> A "group" usually has more than 2 members, but I can't think of an
>> objective cut-off point above 2 or 3. If "three's a crowd" it's also a
>> group, no?
>>
>> So I think it's reasonable for mappers using place=archipelago to
>> describe a group of as few as 2 or 3 islands.
>>
>> Similarly, if you use a tag like "natural=lake_group" to describe
>> named groups of interconnected lakes, this could be used for as few as
>> 2 or 3 lakes, or as many as hundreds.
>
>
> the group relation requires at least 2 objects:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Group_Relation
>
> It may not be absolutely typical natural language to speak of a group of
> two, but proposing also a pair relation seemed overkill ;-) and a group of
> three is fine.
>
> You would not need to specify whether it is a group of trees, lakes or
> islands, because it should be implicit through the members, but of course
> you could add tags like natural=archipelago if it makes sense to you.
>
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Apr 2019, at 11:30, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> 
> and not just a name you have heard from your 
> grandfather to apply to a place around here somewhere but you can't 
> really specifiy what it refers to now.


if you (or your grandfather) can specify _where_ (around where) it is, then I 
would see it as a case for place=locality, you do not need to know where the 
name comes from.

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Apr 2019, at 09:13, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> A "group" usually has more than 2 members, but I can't think of an
> objective cut-off point above 2 or 3. If "three's a crowd" it's also a
> group, no?
> 
> So I think it's reasonable for mappers using place=archipelago to
> describe a group of as few as 2 or 3 islands.
> 
> Similarly, if you use a tag like "natural=lake_group" to describe
> named groups of interconnected lakes, this could be used for as few as
> 2 or 3 lakes, or as many as hundreds.


the group relation requires at least 2 objects:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Group_Relation

It may not be absolutely typical natural language to speak of a group of two, 
but proposing also a pair relation seemed overkill ;-) and a group of three is 
fine.

You would not need to specify whether it is a group of trees, lakes or islands, 
because it should be implicit through the members, but of course you could add 
tags like natural=archipelago if it makes sense to you.


Cheers, Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Apr 2019, at 22:55, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> (BTW, I would recommend tagging archipelagos as simple nodes or as
> multipolygon relations that include all of the islands. The wiki pages
> suggests using a "type=cluster" relation, but this would be hard to
> use)


the usecase for cluster or group relations would be islands mapped only as 
nodes, which you can not put into polygon relations. 

Cheers, Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> That's a challenging one, but it's possible to use a lifecycle prefix
> like proposed:aeroway=aerodrome or abandoned=yes?
>
> If 2 prefixes can be added, you could use
> abandoned:proposed:aeroway=aerodrome
>

To my mind there is a problem with applying lifecycle prefixes to physical
objects: they vanish
from the map (standard carto).  It's great for cases like a pub that has
closed but there's a
possibility of it being bought and re-opened: disused:amenity=pub.  Not so
good for
abandoned buildings: abandoned:building=yes because something that is
clearly present
on the ground (with broken windows and other damage) vanishes from the
map.  Which is
why, for physical objects, I end up using abandoned=yes and disused=yes.

Maybe the renderer should treat lifecycle prefixes on physical objects
differently.  Or the wiki
should be amended to state that disused=yes is valid and preferred to a
lifecycle prefix on
physical objects.  Or something.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 16 April 2019, Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> There's a "place=locality" near me called "Seven Mile Airstrip". 
> Now, that's an interesting choice of names for the place, because
> there's no evidence that it was ever used for aviation.  The best
> guess I've seen for where the name came from is that it was intended
> as an auxiliary runway for Spokane Army Air Depot during World War
> II, and after construction was canceled, the name stuck around.
>
> What tag would you recommend for "thing people believe is the
> abandoned construction site for a runway that was never built"?

The crux about about abandoned:* is that it is usually only verifiable 
as long as physical remains are present.  I don't know this particular 
situation but it looks like that is not the case here.  The question 
you need to ask yourself is what the name currently refers to and tag 
accordingly.  Is it the name of a section of a road ("drive east along 
Seven Mile Airstrip"), the name of a neighborhood or parts of it ("i 
live in Seven Mile Airstrip"), the name of some kind of common area 
("lets have a barbecue tonight at Seven Mile Airstrip"), some patch of 
wilderness ("i went hunting yesterday and shot a rabbit at Seven Mile 
Airstrip").  If you can clearly give the named feature some kind of 
classification of what it is that could also apply to other similar 
places with different name elsewhere you should use or create a tag 
indicating that.  Only if that is not the case you might use the 
generic place=locality - but only if it is actually a verifiably 
locatable place and not just a name you have heard from your 
grandfather to apply to a place around here somewhere but you can't 
really specifiy what it refers to now.

If you look into the database you can find place=locality being used for 
a lot of very different things most of which you could clearly classify 
more precisely.  A tag like place=locality will likely always exist in 
OSM - even if this one is deprecated an alternative would be invented.  
But it should be used as sparsely as possible to make the data as 
meaningful as possible.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It sounds like "Sled Harbor" is a trailhead, a place where you leave a
vehicle to start hiking on a footpath, or where you are picked up in a
vehicle after your hike, correct?

A few months ago we discussed the tag highway=trailhead - used over
1500 times: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ahighway%3Dtrailhead

Trailheads in remote parts of the USA are often no more than a named
place where a path meets a highway.

If the name also describes the clearing in the woods as well, this
might also be landuse=meadow (or natural=scrub, natural=wetland etc).

On 4/16/19, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> There are named localities that have only the most tenuous of
> identifiable features.
>
> One example that I've visited is 'Sled Harbor'. It never had a
> population. It was just a place where the woods were open enough that
> loggers could store their sleds there in the summer. It's now right at
> the boundary between protected wilderness and International Paper
> land. Since there's an easement for the public to travel International
> Paper's road (well, logging track), it's the farthest that one can
> lawfully drive (well, force passage with a 4WD, when there isn't deep
> snow or mud) to pick up or drop off a party. Because of this, hikers
> still use the name. But it's really just a point where the
> highway=track crosses into the boundary=protected_area. There's no
> formal parking. It isn't the endpoint of the track, since it continues
> in farther to abandoned logging camps dating from before the state
> owned the Jessup River parcel. All that there is there is a sign
> saying something like, "no motor vehicles beyond this point."  It is
> still a place with a name.
>
> It did come in from GNIS as 'populated place,' which it is not and
> never was. Still, I don't see a good alternative to place=location for
> it, so I'm definitely against the idea of removing locations
> wholesale.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The definition of archipelago (borrowed from wikipedia): "also known
as an island group or island chain: a named chain, cluster or group of
closely related islands."

A "group" usually has more than 2 members, but I can't think of an
objective cut-off point above 2 or 3. If "three's a crowd" it's also a
group, no?

So I think it's reasonable for mappers using place=archipelago to
describe a group of as few as 2 or 3 islands.

Similarly, if you use a tag like "natural=lake_group" to describe
named groups of interconnected lakes, this could be used for as few as
2 or 3 lakes, or as many as hundreds.

Using place=locality wouldn't work in this situation, since it's used
on a single node, and this is not helpful for describing 2 islands.

On 4/16/19, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>> Can you give an example of one of these groups of named islands? If they
> are close together and divided from other islands in the area, I would use
> “archipelago”.
>
> Here's a small group of only two islands that is definitely not an
> archipelago, (as I understand that term, i.e., a "chain" of islands), and
> have one name to describe both islands, the Leland Islands:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20287799#map=14/58.6562/-135.9916
>
> In this case, the original mapper didn't tag them as a multipolygon but
> applied the place=island tag to the group as a node. I fact, he didn't even
> bother to redraw the horrible PGS coastline to separate them into
> individual islands.
>
> Alaska has hundreds of these island groups.
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:12 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/04/19 22:04, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> > That's an interesting example. Was the wheel put there as a landmark
>> > or route marker, or just for fun?
>>
>> I don't know. I would assume as a landmark, to form a meeting place or a
>> simple navigational aid. I don't even know if the present wheel is the
>> original one.
>>
>> >
>> > If the tag "place=locality" didn't exist, how would you tag this?
>>
>> I'd ask here, that is one of the things this group is good for.
>>
>> >
>> > On 4/15/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> As an example of a locality that has never had a population
>> >>
>> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320
>> >>
>> >> /The Wheel/ (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree
>> >> by
>> >> bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.
>> >>
>> >> No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a
>> >> navigational feature.
>> >>
>> >> Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:
>> >>>  From the original start of place=locality
>> >>>
>> >>> /All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger
>> >>> areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for
>> >>> places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any
>> >>> geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach
>> >>> a
>> >>> name tag to. /
>> >>>
>> >>> That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had
>> >>> population, or places that did not have a population.
>> >>>
>> >>> But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better
>> >>> tagged
>> >>> disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to
>> >>> use' with the others there.
>> >>> /
>> >>> /
>> >>> On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 
>>  sent from a phone
>> 
>>  On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg
>>  mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > The most important value would be one for a locality that is a
>> > former
>> > populated place but no longer has a population.
>> 
>>  I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag
>>  definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a
>>  settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is
>>  living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited
>>  place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no
>>  specific tag has yet been developed.
>>  (e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain
>>  peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc.
>>  so
>>  we don’t use locality for them)
>> 
>>  I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main
>>  tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but
>>  it
>>  depends on the actually proposed values.
>> 
>>  For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as
>>  abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town
>> 
>>  https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values
>> 
>>  which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more
>>  frequent than any “ghost” variations.
>> 

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

That's a challenging one, but it's possible to use a lifecycle prefix
like proposed:aeroway=aerodrome or abandoned=yes?

If 2 prefixes can be added, you could use abandoned:proposed:aeroway=aerodrome

But I wonder if people are talking about the former proposed airstrip
when they refer to this location.

Is there a physical geography feature at this location as well,
perhaps a valley or plateau or natural meadow?

On 4/16/19, Mark Wagner  wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 13:25:14 +0200
> Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
>> place=locality is currently used as a generic tag for anything with a
>> name for which no established more precise tag exists.
>>
>> This kind of contradicts the idea of OSM which would normally suggest
>> to invent a new tag then for the type of feature you have.
>> Subtagging the generic tag to make it less generic would kind of take
>> this to a whole new level.  You could take this even further and
>> suggest tagging everything in OSM something like 'feature=thing' and
>> then differentiating only through 'thing=*'.
>>
>> Long story short - to better differentiate what is currently tagged
>> place=locality the way to go is IMO to create more specific top level
>> tags (or use existing ones like the mentioned "disused:/abandonded:").
>
> There's a "place=locality" near me called "Seven Mile Airstrip".  Now,
> that's an interesting choice of names for the place, because there's no
> evidence that it was ever used for aviation.  The best guess I've seen
> for where the name came from is that it was intended as an auxiliary
> runway for Spokane Army Air Depot during World War II, and after
> construction was canceled, the name stuck around.
>
> What tag would you recommend for "thing people believe is the abandoned
> construction site for a runway that was never built"?
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 13:25:14 +0200
Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> place=locality is currently used as a generic tag for anything with a 
> name for which no established more precise tag exists.
> 
> This kind of contradicts the idea of OSM which would normally suggest
> to invent a new tag then for the type of feature you have.
> Subtagging the generic tag to make it less generic would kind of take
> this to a whole new level.  You could take this even further and
> suggest tagging everything in OSM something like 'feature=thing' and
> then differentiating only through 'thing=*'.
> 
> Long story short - to better differentiate what is currently tagged 
> place=locality the way to go is IMO to create more specific top level 
> tags (or use existing ones like the mentioned "disused:/abandonded:").

There's a "place=locality" near me called "Seven Mile Airstrip".  Now,
that's an interesting choice of names for the place, because there's no
evidence that it was ever used for aviation.  The best guess I've seen
for where the name came from is that it was intended as an auxiliary
runway for Spokane Army Air Depot during World War II, and after
construction was canceled, the name stuck around.

What tag would you recommend for "thing people believe is the abandoned
construction site for a runway that was never built"?

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Dave Swarthout]

> Can you give an example of one of these groups of named islands? If they
are close together and divided from other islands in the area, I would use
“archipelago”.

Here's a small group of only two islands that is definitely not an
archipelago, (as I understand that term, i.e., a "chain" of islands), and
have one name to describe both islands, the Leland Islands:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20287799#map=14/58.6562/-135.9916

In this case, the original mapper didn't tag them as a multipolygon but
applied the place=island tag to the group as a node. I fact, he didn't even
bother to redraw the horrible PGS coastline to separate them into
individual islands.

Alaska has hundreds of these island groups.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:12 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15/04/19 22:04, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > That's an interesting example. Was the wheel put there as a landmark
> > or route marker, or just for fun?
>
> I don't know. I would assume as a landmark, to form a meeting place or a
> simple navigational aid. I don't even know if the present wheel is the
> original one.
>
> >
> > If the tag "place=locality" didn't exist, how would you tag this?
>
> I'd ask here, that is one of the things this group is good for.
>
> >
> > On 4/15/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> As an example of a locality that has never had a population
> >>
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320
> >>
> >> /The Wheel/ (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by
> >> bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.
> >>
> >> No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a
> >> navigational feature.
> >>
> >> Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too.
> >>
> >>
> >> n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:
> >>>  From the original start of place=locality
> >>>
> >>> /All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger
> >>> areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for
> >>> places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any
> >>> geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a
> >>> name tag to. /
> >>>
> >>> That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had
> >>> population, or places that did not have a population.
> >>>
> >>> But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged
> >>> disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city
> >>>
> >>> I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to
> >>> use' with the others there.
> >>> /
> >>> /
> >>> On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
>  sent from a phone
> 
>  On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg
>  mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> 
> > The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
> > populated place but no longer has a population.
> 
>  I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag
>  definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a
>  settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is
>  living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited
>  place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no
>  specific tag has yet been developed.
>  (e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain
>  peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so
>  we don’t use locality for them)
> 
>  I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main
>  tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it
>  depends on the actually proposed values.
> 
>  For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as
>  abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town
> 
>  https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values
> 
>  which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more
>  frequent than any “ghost” variations.
> 
>  Cheers, Martin
> 
> 
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Warin]

On 15/04/19 22:04, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

That's an interesting example. Was the wheel put there as a landmark
or route marker, or just for fun?


I don't know. I would assume as a landmark, to form a meeting place or a simple 
navigational aid. I don't even know if the present wheel is the original one.



If the tag "place=locality" didn't exist, how would you tag this?


I'd ask here, that is one of the things this group is good for.



On 4/15/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

As an example of a locality that has never had a population

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320

/The Wheel/ (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by
bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.

No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a
navigational feature.

Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too.


n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:

 From the original start of place=locality

/All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger
areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for
places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any
geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a
name tag to. /

That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had
population, or places that did not have a population.

But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged
disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city

I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to
use' with the others there.
/
/
On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone

On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:


The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
populated place but no longer has a population.


I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag
definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a
settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is
living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited
place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no
specific tag has yet been developed.
(e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain
peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so
we don’t use locality for them)

I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main
tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it
depends on the actually proposed values.

For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as
abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values

which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more
frequent than any “ghost” variations.

Cheers, Martin





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Those are good points. I’ve created stub wiki pages for Key:abandoned:place
and Key:disused:place - please edit if you have things to add.

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:15 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned
>> railways (and smilar),
>> a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ...
>> a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ...
>> or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...
>> Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150938807
>> This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground any
>> more (apart from a few racks)
>>
>
> I thought that the commoner lifecycle prefix was 'demolished' ?
>
> I use 'disused' if the buildings are relatively well preserved and might
> be rehabbed, 'abandoned' if they're ruined, 'demolished' if the buildings
> are not standing but the settlement is still observable. Most of the ghost
> settlements that I've visited have clearly visible building foundations,
> stone walls separating fields, and road grades (which may be grown to
> trees, but are still obviously artificially graded) and are thus
> 'demolished.' (The ones on State land have likely had their buildings burnt
> to discourage squatters.) Theymay also have formations like tannery vats,
> mine shafts, mill races or cellar holes.
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8690778427 is typical of 'demolished'
> - the road has mature trees standing in it and is not passable for any
> distance by anything on wheels, but the fact that the area was once a
> settlement is obvious. (I've found the remains of a mill, a tannery, and a
> forge in that former settlement, but have not been able to discover even
> its name.)
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Can you give an example of one of these groups of named islands? If they
are close together and divided from other islands in the area, I would use
“archipelago”. And multipolygons should be used for any feature that
consists of several areas.

Islands always qualify as an area, so there’s no need to use an unusual
relation type (unless they are mapped as nodes and you don’t have good
enough imagery to map their coastlines yet)

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 5:57 AM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Joseph wrote:
>
> There is a request to render place=archipelago now (Issue #3394); I
> will look into it. It's only used 740 times, so it would help if more
> people start using the tag. It would certainly be useful here in
> Indonesia.
> (BTW, I would recommend tagging archipelagos as simple nodes or as
> multipolygon relations that include all of the islands. The wiki pages
> suggests using a "type=cluster" relation, but this would be hard to
> use)
>
> The groups of islands I mentioned to are not archipelagos but merely
> several islands sharing a name. The same logic applies to named groups of
> lakes, for example, Three Lakes (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6714525), which I tagged as a
> multipolygon. Lately, as a result of a discussion on this list, I've begun
> using type=group for this sort of feature. OSM Carto doesn't render either
> type=cluster or type=group multipolygons so many mappers will no doubt
> continue to use type=multipolygon for them.
>
> I'm willing to add a more specific tag for abandoned localities if we can
> decide exactly which one of the several alternatives is the best candidate.
> Of  course, 99% of such places in Alaska cannot be inspected in person to
> decide if foundations and infrastructure exist because they are incredibly
> remote. One has only satellite imagery with which to envision what's on the
> ground. That's one reason I fall back to simply using the abandoned=yes tag.
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned
>>> railways (and smilar),
>>> a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned:
>>> ...
>>> a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed:
>>> ... or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...
>>> Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150938807
>>> This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground
>>> any more (apart from a few racks)
>>>
>>
>> I thought that the commoner lifecycle prefix was 'demolished' ?
>>
>> I use 'disused' if the buildings are relatively well preserved and might
>> be rehabbed, 'abandoned' if they're ruined, 'demolished' if the buildings
>> are not standing but the settlement is still observable. Most of the ghost
>> settlements that I've visited have clearly visible building foundations,
>> stone walls separating fields, and road grades (which may be grown to
>> trees, but are still obviously artificially graded) and are thus
>> 'demolished.' (The ones on State land have likely had their buildings burnt
>> to discourage squatters.) Theymay also have formations like tannery vats,
>> mine shafts, mill races or cellar holes.
>>
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8690778427 is typical of
>> 'demolished' - the road has mature trees standing in it and is not passable
>> for any distance by anything on wheels, but the fact that the area was once
>> a settlement is obvious. (I've found the remains of a mill, a tannery, and
>> a forge in that former settlement, but have not been able to discover even
>> its name.)
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Dave Swarthout]

Joseph wrote:

There is a request to render place=archipelago now (Issue #3394); I
will look into it. It's only used 740 times, so it would help if more
people start using the tag. It would certainly be useful here in
Indonesia.
(BTW, I would recommend tagging archipelagos as simple nodes or as
multipolygon relations that include all of the islands. The wiki pages
suggests using a "type=cluster" relation, but this would be hard to
use)

The groups of islands I mentioned to are not archipelagos but merely
several islands sharing a name. The same logic applies to named groups of
lakes, for example, Three Lakes (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6714525), which I tagged as a
multipolygon. Lately, as a result of a discussion on this list, I've begun
using type=group for this sort of feature. OSM Carto doesn't render either
type=cluster or type=group multipolygons so many mappers will no doubt
continue to use type=multipolygon for them.

I'm willing to add a more specific tag for abandoned localities if we can
decide exactly which one of the several alternatives is the best candidate.
Of  course, 99% of such places in Alaska cannot be inspected in person to
decide if foundations and infrastructure exist because they are incredibly
remote. One has only satellite imagery with which to envision what's on the
ground. That's one reason I fall back to simply using the abandoned=yes tag.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned
>> railways (and smilar),
>> a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ...
>> a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ...
>> or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...
>> Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150938807
>> This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground any
>> more (apart from a few racks)
>>
>
> I thought that the commoner lifecycle prefix was 'demolished' ?
>
> I use 'disused' if the buildings are relatively well preserved and might
> be rehabbed, 'abandoned' if they're ruined, 'demolished' if the buildings
> are not standing but the settlement is still observable. Most of the ghost
> settlements that I've visited have clearly visible building foundations,
> stone walls separating fields, and road grades (which may be grown to
> trees, but are still obviously artificially graded) and are thus
> 'demolished.' (The ones on State land have likely had their buildings burnt
> to discourage squatters.) Theymay also have formations like tannery vats,
> mine shafts, mill races or cellar holes.
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8690778427 is typical of 'demolished'
> - the road has mature trees standing in it and is not passable for any
> distance by anything on wheels, but the fact that the area was once a
> settlement is obvious. (I've found the remains of a mill, a tannery, and a
> forge in that former settlement, but have not been able to discover even
> its name.)
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned
> railways (and smilar),
> a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ...
> a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ...
> or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...
> Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150938807
> This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground any
> more (apart from a few racks)
>

I thought that the commoner lifecycle prefix was 'demolished' ?

I use 'disused' if the buildings are relatively well preserved and might be
rehabbed, 'abandoned' if they're ruined, 'demolished' if the buildings are
not standing but the settlement is still observable. Most of the ghost
settlements that I've visited have clearly visible building foundations,
stone walls separating fields, and road grades (which may be grown to
trees, but are still obviously artificially graded) and are thus
'demolished.' (The ones on State land have likely had their buildings burnt
to discourage squatters.) Theymay also have formations like tannery vats,
mine shafts, mill races or cellar holes.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8690778427 is typical of 'demolished' -
the road has mature trees standing in it and is not passable for any
distance by anything on wheels, but the fact that the area was once a
settlement is obvious. (I've found the remains of a mill, a tannery, and a
forge in that former settlement, but have not been able to discover even
its name.)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Volker Schmidt]

A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned
railways (and smilar),
a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ...
a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ...
or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...
Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150938807
This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground any
more (apart from a few racks)


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 17:25, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> There are named localities that have only the most tenuous of
> identifiable features.
>
> One example that I've visited is 'Sled Harbor'. It never had a
> population. It was just a place where the woods were open enough that
> loggers could store their sleds there in the summer. It's now right at
> the boundary between protected wilderness and International Paper
> land. Since there's an easement for the public to travel International
> Paper's road (well, logging track), it's the farthest that one can
> lawfully drive (well, force passage with a 4WD, when there isn't deep
> snow or mud) to pick up or drop off a party. Because of this, hikers
> still use the name. But it's really just a point where the
> highway=track crosses into the boundary=protected_area. There's no
> formal parking. It isn't the endpoint of the track, since it continues
> in farther to abandoned logging camps dating from before the state
> owned the Jessup River parcel. All that there is there is a sign
> saying something like, "no motor vehicles beyond this point."  It is
> still a place with a name.
>
> It did come in from GNIS as 'populated place,' which it is not and
> never was. Still, I don't see a good alternative to place=location for
> it, so I'm definitely against the idea of removing locations
> wholesale.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Kevin Kenny]

There are named localities that have only the most tenuous of
identifiable features.

One example that I've visited is 'Sled Harbor'. It never had a
population. It was just a place where the woods were open enough that
loggers could store their sleds there in the summer. It's now right at
the boundary between protected wilderness and International Paper
land. Since there's an easement for the public to travel International
Paper's road (well, logging track), it's the farthest that one can
lawfully drive (well, force passage with a 4WD, when there isn't deep
snow or mud) to pick up or drop off a party. Because of this, hikers
still use the name. But it's really just a point where the
highway=track crosses into the boundary=protected_area. There's no
formal parking. It isn't the endpoint of the track, since it continues
in farther to abandoned logging camps dating from before the state
owned the Jessup River parcel. All that there is there is a sign
saying something like, "no motor vehicles beyond this point."  It is
still a place with a name.

It did come in from GNIS as 'populated place,' which it is not and
never was. Still, I don't see a good alternative to place=location for
it, so I'm definitely against the idea of removing locations
wholesale.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> I'm certain the gold rushes Alaska experienced
> during the past 150 years contributed to many of these abandoned "Populated
> Places".

I've checked, and I don't see any tag like "historic=campsite" or
similar. This could account for many of the named places I know in my
home area in Northern California as well. I also wonder how the
locations of nomadic campsites are tagged in places like the Sahara or
Mongolia. Nomadic lifestyles are becoming very rare, but there are
still a few places. There are still Irish travelers and Roma people
who live in temporary settlements. I wonder how these are tagged. They
are not tourism=caravan_site but place=hamlet suggests a settlement,
rather than a temporary camp?

> I tag a typical abandoned place=locality with only the name, the source,
> the abandoned=yes tag and occasionally with a description if I think it's
> interesting enough.

I like the suggestion from this thread to add
abandoned:place=hamlet/village for the former mining towns. This key
has already been used over 6000 times. It would also be possible to
use disused:place=* for settlements that are uninhabited but still
have buildings, eg a ghost town.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned%3Aplace

> Sometimes people tag groups of islands with the locality tag as opposed to
> creating a relation of some sort.

There is a request to render place=archipelago now (Issue #3394); I
will look into it. It's only used 740 times, so it would help if more
people start using the tag. It would certainly be useful here in
Indonesia. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/place=archipelago

-Joseph
(BTW, I would recommend tagging archipelagos as simple nodes or as
multipolygon relations that include all of the islands. The wiki pages
suggests using a "type=cluster" relation, but this would be hard to
use)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On 4/15/19, Lionel Giard  wrote:
> In Belgium (where i map), we generally use this tag for place without
> population ... like a crossroads

I would suggest highway=junction with name=*

> a field

landuse=meadow or =farmland with name=*

> part of a forest

natural=wood with name=*

> some hills

Depending on what the name refers to, natural=peak or natural=ridge.
If neither tag fits, natural=hill could work, or
natural=mountain_range.
Perhaps there should be natural=hill_range for a connected series of hills?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Dave Swarthout]

Yes, that's one locality for every four persons in the state, an
interesting statistic. Many of these are indeed GNIS imports and some of
those are also tagged with
"gnis:Class": "Populated Place"
which is often inaccurate. I'm certain the gold rushes Alaska experienced
during the past 150 years contributed to many of these abandoned "Populated
Places". Some of them were quite large (several thousands of inhabitants)
but as gold became scarcer and more difficult to extract from the ground,
were abandoned. I typically add only the abandoned=yes tag on any feature
that either appears to be or is known to be deserted.

I tag a typical abandoned place=locality with only the name, the source,
the abandoned=yes tag and occasionally with a description if I think it's
interesting enough. Some of this information is found in a very useful
public domain publication, the Dictionary of Alaska Place Names, which
contains a wealth of information about such localities. I use it constantly
in my Alaska mapping work.

I don't have a good guess as to the validity of the existing localities nor
can I estimate how many might be actually natural features like
mountain_range or valleys but there are definitely plenty of those.
Sometimes people tag groups of islands with the locality tag as opposed to
creating a relation of some sort. It's a much simpler solution and provides
the mapper assurance that it will render. I don't use that approach because
I don't think it's correct.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:29 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> > There are countless old settlements, gold mining camps, road building
> > camps, airstrips, and even Native American villages scattered around our
> > immense state. Most are indeed abandoned and sometimes I add
> abandoned=yes
> > to the tags, especially if there is no longer any sign of habitation
> > visible on satellite imagery.
>
> Thanks Dave,
>
> What tags do you usually add for a former settlement, or for an
> abandoned gold mining or road building camp?
>
> Are you using just place=locality with abandoned=yes, or is the tag
> "abandoned" always referring to a more specific feature, like
> historic=mine or aeroway=aerodrome?
>
> > An Overpass query returned almost 190,000 nodes along with 417 ways and
> 46
> > relations tagged as place=locality, that are located in Alaska.
>
> There are 750k people in Alaska, so there's more than one locality for
> every 4 people!
>
> Clearly most of these were imported, probably from GNIS(?).
>
> In your experience, how many of the imported locality nodes seem to be
> correctly tagged?
>
> Could many of them be something more specific, like natural=valley,
> natural=ridge, natural=peak, natural=bay, railway=junction,
> highway=junction, place=island, etc?
>
> Joseph
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

That's an interesting example. Was the wheel put there as a landmark
or route marker, or just for fun?

If the tag "place=locality" didn't exist, how would you tag this?

On 4/15/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As an example of a locality that has never had a population
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320
>
> /The Wheel/ (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by
> bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.
>
> No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a
> navigational feature.
>
> Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too.
>
>
> n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:
>> From the original start of place=locality
>>
>> /All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger
>> areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for
>> places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any
>> geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a
>> name tag to. /
>>
>> That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had
>> population, or places that did not have a population.
>>
>> But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged
>> disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city
>>
>> I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to
>> use' with the others there.
>> /
>> /
>> On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> sent from a phone
>>>
>>> On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg
>>> mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
 The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
 populated place but no longer has a population.
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag
>>> definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a
>>> settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is
>>> living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited
>>> place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no
>>> specific tag has yet been developed.
>>> (e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain
>>> peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so
>>> we don’t use locality for them)
>>>
>>> I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main
>>> tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it
>>> depends on the actually proposed values.
>>>
>>> For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as
>>> abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town
>>>
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values
>>>
>>> which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more
>>> frequent than any “ghost” variations.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> There are countless old settlements, gold mining camps, road building
> camps, airstrips, and even Native American villages scattered around our
> immense state. Most are indeed abandoned and sometimes I add abandoned=yes
> to the tags, especially if there is no longer any sign of habitation
> visible on satellite imagery.

Thanks Dave,

What tags do you usually add for a former settlement, or for an
abandoned gold mining or road building camp?

Are you using just place=locality with abandoned=yes, or is the tag
"abandoned" always referring to a more specific feature, like
historic=mine or aeroway=aerodrome?

> An Overpass query returned almost 190,000 nodes along with 417 ways and 46
> relations tagged as place=locality, that are located in Alaska.

There are 750k people in Alaska, so there's more than one locality for
every 4 people!

Clearly most of these were imported, probably from GNIS(?).

In your experience, how many of the imported locality nodes seem to be
correctly tagged?

Could many of them be something more specific, like natural=valley,
natural=ridge, natural=peak, natural=bay, railway=junction,
highway=junction, place=island, etc?

Joseph

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Christoph Hormann]

place=locality is currently used as a generic tag for anything with a 
name for which no established more precise tag exists.

This kind of contradicts the idea of OSM which would normally suggest to 
invent a new tag then for the type of feature you have.  Subtagging the 
generic tag to make it less generic would kind of take this to a whole 
new level.  You could take this even further and suggest tagging 
everything in OSM something like 'feature=thing' and then 
differentiating only through 'thing=*'.

Long story short - to better differentiate what is currently tagged 
place=locality the way to go is IMO to create more specific top level 
tags (or use existing ones like the mentioned "disused:/abandonded:").

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Dave Swarthout]

As a mapper in Alaska, I rely heavily upon the USGS Topographic map layer
to provide names for geographic features. Alaska has many places that
perfectly fit the definition Warin provided from the Wiki:

*All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger areas
of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for places that
have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any geographic feature or
population centre that could be used to attach a name tag to. *

Given Alaska's gold mining history, I encounter such places all the time.
There are countless old settlements, gold mining camps, road building
camps, airstrips, and even Native American villages scattered around our
immense state. Most are indeed abandoned and sometimes I add abandoned=yes
to the tags, especially if there is no longer any sign of habitation
visible on satellite imagery.

An Overpass query returned almost 190,000 nodes along with 417 ways and 46
relations tagged as place=locality, that are located in Alaska.

AlaskaDave

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 3:34 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As an example of a locality that has never had a population
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320
>
> *The Wheel* (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by
> bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.
>
> No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a
> navigational feature.
>
> Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too.
>
>
> n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:
>
> From the original start of place=locality
>
> *All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger
> areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for
> places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any
> geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a name
> tag to. *
>
> That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had
> population, or places that did not have a population.
>
> But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged
> disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city
>
> I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to use'
> with the others there.
>
>
> On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
> The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
> populated place but no longer has a population.
>
>
>
> I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag definition
> as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a settlement or
> dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is living around there, it
> means this name is not for an inhabited place). A generic tag for a place
> name/ toponym, to be used where no specific tag has yet been developed.
> (e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain peaks,
> wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so we don’t use
> locality for them)
>
> I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main tag
> might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it depends
> on the actually proposed values.
>
> For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as
> abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values
>
> which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more
> frequent than any “ghost” variations.
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Warin]

As an example of a locality that has never had a population

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320

/The Wheel/ (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by 
bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.


No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a 
navigational feature.


Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too.


n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:

From the original start of place=locality

/All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger 
areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for 
places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any 
geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a 
name tag to. /


That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had 
population, or places that did not have a population.


But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged 
disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city


I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to 
use' with the others there.

/
/
On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:



The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
populated place but no longer has a population.



I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag 
definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a 
settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is 
living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited 
place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no 
specific tag has yet been developed.
(e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain 
peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so 
we don’t use locality for them)


I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main 
tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it 
depends on the actually proposed values.


For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as
abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values

which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more 
frequent than any “ghost” variations.


Cheers, Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Warin]

From the original start of place=locality

/All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger 
areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for 
places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any 
geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a 
name tag to. /


That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had 
population, or places that did not have a population.


But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged 
disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city


I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to use' 
with the others there.

/
/
On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:



The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
populated place but no longer has a population.



I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag 
definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a 
settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is 
living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited 
place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no 
specific tag has yet been developed.
(e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain peaks, 
wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so we 
don’t use locality for them)


I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main 
tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it 
depends on the actually proposed values.


For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as
abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values

which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more 
frequent than any “ghost” variations.


Cheers, Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Lionel Giard]

In Belgium (where i map), we generally use this tag for place without
population that have a name ("lieu-dit" in french (look at this wikipedia
article) ), like a crossroads (like
"Carrefour de la Justice" (literally "crossroads of justice")), a field, a
part of a forest or some hills. It is often very old names that are shown
on various topographic map (generally the name is the same than in the
past, as we can see them on maps from 1700 ...) and it is really useful to
locate ourself.

Thus i would not limit to the sub-type that you propose (which are only
considering "abandoned places") because there are a lot of cases where they
were never anybody there (we can sometimes find that the crossroads are
inside a hamlet but the crossoroads itself is not inhabited). Also,
locality=junction isn't related to railway (if you look at example, it is
bridges
 or
crossroads ). So i would use
add sub-type for all those "never inhabited places".

Lionel

Le lun. 15 avr. 2019 à 03:57, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :

> Currently place=locality is main in the database from imports, and it
> is also used as a way to tag a feature which is not currently rendered
> by most map renders so that the name will show.
>
> Since place=locality was originally defined as "a named place that has
> no population" it's easy to see how this (mis)use came about.
>
> There are certainly places that really should be tagged place=locality.
>
> The wiki mentions places that used to have a population, but are not
> longer inhabited; eg "ghost towns" and railway junctions in the USA.
> This features are often still shown on other maps, and may still have
> a sign that shows the location, but even if they are only know by
> local knowledge they may be useful for orientation.
>
> For example, the locations of old mining camps by the river were still
> used by fire fighters and police to specify locations of incidents in
> my home area in rural California.
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place=locality
>
> What we need is a way to distinguish the correctly-tagged features and
> those that are double-tagging for rendering. I would suggest that a
> subtag such as "locality=*" could be useful.
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/locality#values
>
> This tag is already used 65,000 times, but actually on boundaries; it
> was used for an import in Ireland with the values locality=townland
> and locality=subtownland. (These seem to be incorrect usages, because
> townlands seem to be populated places)
>
> Besides the import, it's been used 26 times with locality=junction
> (which could also be tagged railway=junction
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Djunction)? The other
> values look incorrect; they are all populated places, or backwards
> (locality=place).
>
> So I think the key "locality=*" could be used to specify the type of
> locality. This would allow database users to decide which localities
> to render, out of the 1.3 million
>
> The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
> populated place but no longer has a population.
>
> Ideas for the value?
>
> locality=ghost_town seems too American
>
> locality=formerly_inhabited could work but is rather wordy
>
> locality=abandoned_farm or =abandoned_hamlet might work?
>
> Are there other types of valid localities which cannot be better
> described with a different tag, other than former inhabited places?
>
> -Joseph
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
> populated place but no longer has a population.


I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag definition as a 
way of saying the place name does not relate to a settlement or dwelling (but 
it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is living around there, it means this name 
is not for an inhabited place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be 
used where no specific tag has yet been developed.
(e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain peaks, 
wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so we don’t use 
locality for them)

I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main tag might 
be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it depends on the 
actually proposed values.

For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as 
abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values

which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more frequent 
than any “ghost” variations.

Cheers, Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging