Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

> 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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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)

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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:

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

> 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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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: ...

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

> 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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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 > >

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

> 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 >

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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,

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

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