Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Warin]

On 19-Jun-17 08:30 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2017-06-18 17:44 GMT+02:00 Joachim >:


Currently we categorize settlements by number of inhabitants, modified
by importance. I would rather not open another dimension. The type of
of a settlement can be deduced by processing the landuse inside. If
there is use in a binary (yes/no) property it should be added to the
place=* feature: e.g. dispersed_settlement=yes. But this looks more
like job for Wikidata.



we base our settlement classification not only on population, the 
population numbers serve as an indicator what size we expect from 
certain classes in certain areas, but they are not hard limits. Other 
factors we consider: part of a settlement or whole settlement, 
functional/cultural parameters (a place which is officially a "town" 
in Italy will be a town in OSM, a place which isn't a "town" will not 
become more than a "village") and maybe more.


The functional aspect counts to a fair degree in Australia. As the over 
all population density is low a small remote settlement will usually 
have more facilities that a European would expect from the settlements 
population size.
Settlements can serve a vast area with high demand for these facilities. 
If a settlement failed to provide these facilities travelling times to 
obtain these services would be large (days there and back).



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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-06-18 17:44 GMT+02:00 Joachim :

> Currently we categorize settlements by number of inhabitants, modified
> by importance. I would rather not open another dimension. The type of
> of a settlement can be deduced by processing the landuse inside. If
> there is use in a binary (yes/no) property it should be added to the
> place=* feature: e.g. dispersed_settlement=yes. But this looks more
> like job for Wikidata.
>


we base our settlement classification not only on population, the
population numbers serve as an indicator what size we expect from certain
classes in certain areas, but they are not hard limits. Other factors we
consider: part of a settlement or whole settlement, functional/cultural
parameters (a place which is officially a "town" in Italy will be a town in
OSM, a place which isn't a "town" will not become more than a "village")
and maybe more.


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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Joachim]

I agree that landuse should usually get no names.

If a settlement has a name which is used only for administrative or
postal purposes there is no need for a place=* feature, just use
boundary=administrative/postal_code.

If the dispersed settlement is perceived as an settlement (I'm living
in...) it should get a place=* element.

Currently we categorize settlements by number of inhabitants, modified
by importance. I would rather not open another dimension. The type of
of a settlement can be deduced by processing the landuse inside. If
there is use in a binary (yes/no) property it should be added to the
place=* feature: e.g. dispersed_settlement=yes. But this looks more
like job for Wikidata.

Another big problem is the exclusive usage of settlement place as
nodes. But dispersed settlements have no centre. I just drafted an
article which presents solutions for settlements with centres. This
would allow dispersed settlements to migrate from place node to area
since they would not considered be problematic any more. All is
detailed here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/place_areas

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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[ralph.aytoun]

>> A place=* does not just consist of a small built up area with it’s church, 
>> shop and community centre, it >>usually includes a certain amount of 
>> greenbelt and rural area surrounding that as well.


>that's not the place=city/town/village/hamlet etc. but the administrative 
>territorial entity (every spot is part >of an administrative entity, but not 
>necessarily part of a settlement)

Sorry if I confused the issue, I am trying to show that landuse=* tags should 
not be used for this purpose.

 The point I was making is that communities, settlements and the like also 
conform to similar models. While it is cartographically correct to place the 
name of a village, hamlet, settlement, community, indicating the cluster of 
buildings that make up the centre of that community it refers to all it’s 
components (the cluster of buildings, the cattle enclosures, the worked lands 
around it) and that cannot be indicated by a landuse=* tag as it’s area. By all 
means use a  node to give the status and name if the full extent of the area is 
unknown or if you want the name to be positioned at the settlement but please 
do not to attach the name to the landuse polygon.

For example, where you have a farm lets say it’s name is XYZ. The name may be 
positioned next to the cluster of residential buildings, barns and workhouses 
(landuse=farmyard) but the name would refer to the whole extent of the farm. So 
this would include landuse=farmyard, landuse=farmlands, landuse=orchards, 
landuse=meadow and so on. My point that the tag name=* should not be attached 
to a landuse polygon because it does not just indicate a single landuse.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Martin Koppenhoefer
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 1:48 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements



sent from a phone

> On 17. Jun 2017, at 00:20,  
>  wrote:
> 
> A place=* does not just consist of a small built up area with it’s church, 
> shop and community centre, it usually includes a certain amount of greenbelt 
> and rural area surrounding that as well.


that's not the place=city/town/village/hamlet etc. but the administrative 
territorial entity (every spot is part of an administrative entity, but not 
necessarily part of a settlement)

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] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Jun 2017, at 00:20,  
>  wrote:
> 
> A place=* does not just consist of a small built up area with it’s church, 
> shop and community centre, it usually includes a certain amount of greenbelt 
> and rural area surrounding that as well.


that's not the place=city/town/village/hamlet etc. but the administrative 
territorial entity (every spot is part of an administrative entity, but not 
necessarily part of a settlement)

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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[ralph.aytoun]

Sent from Mail for Windows 10
I believe that too many people are confusing the landuse=residential with the 
boundary=* tags. There should not be any area names, hamlet names, community 
names attached to a landuse tag. The landuse tag is to indicate the use of the 
land (residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, educational).

A place=* does not just consist of a small built up area with it’s church, shop 
and community centre, it usually includes a certain amount of greenbelt and 
rural area surrounding that as well.

If there is a town, village, hamlet, or rural authority then that has a 
separate boundary to the landuse and can have multiple landuses within that 
boundary. There are more than enough different levels (12) of 
boundary=administrative to accommodate or be adapted to fit most instances. If 
not then there is boundary=user_defined.  That is the where the place and name 
tags should be applied and discussion should be concentrated, not on the 
landuse=residential.

I hope that I have helped rather than confused this conversation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

2017-06-16 19:52 GMT+01:00 Dudley Ibbett :

> I’m slightly confused by this discussion.  I live in a “hamlet” which is
> within a “dispersed settlement”.  “Dispersed settlement” describes the
> pattern of isolated dwellings, farmyards, hamlets, villages etc. on a
> much larger scale.
>
>
>
> We don’t really seem to have tags that currently describe settlement
> patterns.  If we did then we would need “linear” & “nuclear” as well as
> “dispersed”.
>
>
>
> The “hamlet” has a name (which is used in the address) but the “dispersed
> settlement” doesn’t as it is just describes a pattern of buildings,
> hamlets, farmyards etc.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Dudley
>
>
That not a pattern everywhere. There are places where a "dispersed
settlement" don't have a "hamlet" inside. The hamlet tag description don't
fit because it could have more than 100-200 inhabitants and not necessary
should be strictly isolated. Anyway, it has a name.

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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Dudley Ibbett]

I’m slightly confused by this discussion.  I live in a “hamlet” which is within 
a “dispersed settlement”.  “Dispersed settlement” describes the pattern of 
isolated dwellings, farmyards, hamlets, villages etc. on a much larger scale.

We don’t really seem to have tags that currently describe settlement patterns.  
If we did then we would need “linear” & “nuclear” as well as “dispersed”.

The “hamlet” has a name (which is used in the address) but the “dispersed 
settlement” doesn’t as it is just describes a pattern of buildings, hamlets, 
farmyards etc.

Regards

Dudley




From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Sent: 16 June 2017 13:56
To: Jerry Clough - OSM; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements


2017-06-16 15:50 GMT+02:00 Jerry Clough - OSM 
mailto:sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk>>:
In summary: we have an excellent source of mapped dispersed settlements in 
Europe; absence of any specific tags for such places has only slightly impeded 
mapping (although perhaps a rigorous insistence on locality having no 
population may make it harder);



yes, basically what you are telling us is that you've mapped these settlements 
as place=locality, which is not in line with the wiki definition of 
place=locality.

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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-06-16 15:50 GMT+02:00 Jerry Clough - OSM :

> In summary: we have an excellent source of mapped dispersed settlements in
> Europe; absence of any specific tags for such places has only slightly
> impeded mapping (although perhaps a rigorous insistence on locality having
> no population may make it harder);




yes, basically what you are telling us is that you've mapped these
settlements as place=locality, which is not in line with the wiki
definition of place=locality.

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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

We have plenty of examples of dispersed/scattered settlement patterns which 
have been mapped without having to worry about lack of tags: more or less the 
entire Celtic fringe of NW Europe (Brittany, Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Scottish 
Highlands) shows this settlement pattern. The nucleated towns of Ireland & 
Wales being introduced by settlers (invaders?) such as Vikings or Anglo-Saxons. 
In addition many mining areas in Wales show a later dispersed settlement 
pattern. The medieval administrative units (parishes) which have often ended up 
as contemporary admin units often have little correspondence with the actual 
settlement pattern and thus defining boundaries for toponyms may be difficult.
The exception, of course, are townlands in Ireland.. These are ancient bounded 
land units which are the primary descriptive toponyms in much or rural Ireland. 
These are all mapped as place=locality, but with an additional attributive tag 
locality=townland. I would see this as a precedent, and one could envisage 
locality=dispersed_settlement.
However, looking at Wales and Brittany, I think the nature of dispersed 
settlement is to create a finer grain of toponymy. Many villages in Wales which 
these days appear nucleated have origins as rather dispersed places, a good 
example which I know well is Llanfair PG on Anglesey. Within living memory 
(mine) the parts of the settlement were known as Pentre Uchaf & Pentre Isaf 
(Upper & Lower), and I think it's likely that many local toponyms of this sort 
were not recorded by map makers. Elsewhere in Wales places where members of the 
family lived tend to be referred to either by the name of the village/parish or 
by the name of the farm/house. For the most part the latter are not true 
toponyms in Britain.
In Brittany there are even signposts showing how to find all the localities of 
a commune in the chef-lieu (I have photos of some with perhaps 60 or so place 
names). These days many can be suitably tagged with place=hamlet, 
place=locality or possibly place=isolated_dwelling. Once again changes in the 
past 40 years or so obscure some of the more obvious features of these places 
(i.e., places which had a few farmsteads and no mains water or sanitation in 
the 1970s are now lived in by commuters).
In summary: we have an excellent source of mapped dispersed settlements in 
Europe; absence of any specific tags for such places has only slightly impeded 
mapping (although perhaps a rigorous insistence on locality having no 
population may make it harder); there are reasonable precedents (townlands.ie) 
for using a locality tag to add further information; and, lastly, the 
relationship between zoonyms, admin boundaries and settlements is likely to be 
complex in such places requiring good local & historical knowledge.
Jerry
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
OpenStreetMap
 OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to 
use under an open license.  |   |

  |

  |

 


.

  From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
 To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"  
 Sent: Friday, 16 June 2017, 11:25
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements
   


sent from a phone

> On 16. Jun 2017, at 11:45, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> A minimum of 10 residential dwellings


I'd set the minimum as 2-3 (above isolated dwelling)


> each separated from the others by at least 500 meters, with a maximum overall 
> area of 5 square kilometres



for me they don't have to be _each_ separated and there mustn't be a minimum 
distance, it's sufficient that they don't form a nucleus. I'd also not limit 
this by any maximum area, the criterion is that there is a name for the 
ensemble.


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] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

Also note that, at least here in Spain, in a dispersed settlement the
'streets' usually have no name and the postal address of the building is
given by the name of the settlement and a housenumber. So this is a valid
postal address "Lugar Anocheza, 10" where "Lugar" means place.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Jun 2017, at 11:45, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> A minimum of 10 residential dwellings


I'd set the minimum as 2-3 (above isolated dwelling)


> each separated from the others by at least 500 meters, with a maximum overall 
> area of 5 square kilometres



for me they don't have to be _each_ separated and there mustn't be a minimum 
distance, it's sufficient that they don't form a nucleus. I'd also not limit 
this by any maximum area, the criterion is that there is a name for the 
ensemble.


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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Warin]

On 16-Jun-17 06:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 16. Jun 2017, at 09:42, Javier Sánchez Portero  wrote:

Any of the two proposals, a new tag or change place=locality, will be fine.


I'm strongly opposing changing locality to be used for settlements as well.



+1. Means past tagging is less specific.

Possibly a new place value? Dispersed or scattered? I think dispersed is better.

However .. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Chadwell-St-Mary is described as 
a 'dispersed settlement' when it does not appear to be what is meant by the 
posts here.

This is a concern of mine .. there_needs_  to be a_good_  definition of what a 
'dispersed place' is .. not just some words that could be stretched or shrunk 
to mean things unintended. .

Those who want this will need to figure out what is a minimum and a maximum ... 
Possibly? something like?

A minimum of 10 residential dwellings each separated from the others by at 
least 500 meters, with a maximum overall area of 5 square kilometres

Then if the place in question does not reach;

the minimum then the collection is a hamlet, or

the maximum then they are separate isolated dwellings or farms.

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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Jun 2017, at 09:42, Javier Sánchez Portero  
> wrote:
> 
> Any of the two proposals, a new tag or change place=locality, will be fine.


I'm strongly opposing changing locality to be used for settlements as well.


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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

Hello

I would like to say that here, in Spain, we are in the same case. The
goverment office for population census give in [1] for each unit
(settlement) two values refering to the nucleus population and to the
dispersed population. Very frequently, there are units with only dispersed
population and no central nucleus. They usually correspond to an area with
a mix of residential and agricultural landuses with disperse buildings that
receives a common name.

Any of the two proposals, a new tag or change place=locality, will be fine.

Greetings, Javier Sanchez

[1] http://www.ine.es/nomen2/index.do


2017-06-15 12:35 GMT+01:00 mbranco2 :

> Martin began this thread after a discussion in the Italian List [1] .
> Problem arise because we've official toponyms (they are used in addresses,
> in scarcely inhabited areas, where roads have not an official name).
> These toponyms are not strictly related to the (few) dispersed houses, but
> also to the surrounding woods, meadows, fields, etc
> There aren't official borders for these areas, so we'd use just only a
> node, not a closed way to identify the zone.
>
> To show an example, in this screenshot [2] you can read several toponyms
> related to this area [3] : coloured dots are buildings with related toponym
> being in their addresses.
>
> You can find (several times) the same issue in the discussion page for
> place=locality [4] : in my opinion, place=locality could resolve this issue
> if we change "unpopulated place" with "unpopulated or scarcely inhabited
> place".
>
> Ciao,
> Marco
>
> [1] http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Cantone-contrada-
> localita-regione-tp5897927.html
> [2] https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B65acVCG5NRQTVZ1MFg0aF9jSDQ
> [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.5461/7.9607
> [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:place%3Dlocality
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Jun 2017, at 06:29, Vao Matua  wrote:
> 
> A landuse= tag of Dispersed_Residential or Residential_Agriculture would be 
> helpful and more useful than place=locality or place=isolated_dwelling


you can tag actual landuse (residential or agricultural, etc.), and will 
automatically see whether these are coherent or isolated. 
Isolated dwelling is for a single dwelling, the intent behind this new tag is 
to have a way for tagging a group of several (dispersed) buildings that somehow 
belong together (have a common name for the whole)


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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Jun 2017, at 13:35, mbranco2  wrote:
> 
> These toponyms are not strictly related to the (few) dispersed houses, but 
> also to the surrounding woods, meadows, fields, etc


if the toponyms are not related to a settlement or part of it, locality is fine 
as value for place. Still I'm sure there are these kind of dispersed 
settlements consisting of several houses with a common settlement name that 
would not be nicely classified as hamlets, so a new place value would make 
sense (IMHO).

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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Jun 2017, at 00:11, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> What is your definition of it? 


a settlement consisting of dispersed houses, i.e. lots of space between them 
(more then just the garden), e.g. fields. Absence of a core/nucleus/centre.

Wikipedia has an article about them: 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersed_settlement

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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[mbranco2]

Martin began this thread after a discussion in the Italian List [1] .
Problem arise because we've official toponyms (they are used in addresses,
in scarcely inhabited areas, where roads have not an official name).
These toponyms are not strictly related to the (few) dispersed houses, but
also to the surrounding woods, meadows, fields, etc
There aren't official borders for these areas, so we'd use just only a
node, not a closed way to identify the zone.

To show an example, in this screenshot [2] you can read several toponyms
related to this area [3] : coloured dots are buildings with related toponym
being in their addresses.

You can find (several times) the same issue in the discussion page for
place=locality [4] : in my opinion, place=locality could resolve this issue
if we change "unpopulated place" with "unpopulated or scarcely inhabited
place".

Ciao,
Marco

[1]
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Cantone-contrada-localita-regione-tp5897927.html
[2] https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B65acVCG5NRQTVZ1MFg0aF9jSDQ
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.5461/7.9607
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:place%3Dlocality

>* On Jun 14, 2017, at 11:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote:
*> >* Looking at the currently available place values, there are still
some gaps to fill. IMHO we should have something for dispersed
settlements / scattered settlements, as locality is for places where
the name doesn't refer to something inhabited.
*> >* Which term is better understood / used in the UK, dispersed
settlements or scattered settlements?
*> >* Other thoughts?
*> >* Cheers,
*>* Martin
*>* ___
*>* Tagging mailing list
*>* Tagging at openstreetmap.org

*>* https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Warin]

If the land is not used for agriculture but for residences then 
landuse=residential.


Most of the land is used for agriculture? Then landuse=farmland.

Where the land between the buildings is used for both .. I'd map it 
landuse=farmland. And then


where a residence occurs - map the building, building=residential. Most 
of the time mappers may have little time to give to these things though 
and armchair mappers will be stuck with building=yes..


-
When does a wide spread village become dispersed_residential? Sorry but 
the determination from one to the other will need to be made, and that 
may well be country/culture specific.



The 'place' tag does not nominate the landuse, it is really just the 
size, importance and name of an area.



On 15-Jun-17 02:29 PM, Vao Matua wrote:
Here in Ethopia most of the population lives in a rural setting.  
Sometimes dwellings are grouped into villages, but other areas are 
more dispersed. Here is an example of a residential agriculture area

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/6.93275/38.42255

A landuse= tag of Dispersed_Residential or Residential_Agriculture 
would be helpful and more useful than place=locality or 
place=isolated_dwelling


Emmor
OSM= Palolo




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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Vao Matua]

Here in Ethopia most of the population lives in a rural setting.  Sometimes
dwellings are grouped into villages, but other areas are more dispersed.
Here is an example of a residential agriculture area
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/6.93275/38.42255

A landuse= tag of Dispersed_Residential or Residential_Agriculture would be
helpful and more useful than place=locality or place=isolated_dwelling

Emmor
OSM= Palolo

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:11 AM, John Willis  wrote:

> What is your definition of it?
>
> Javbw
>
> > On Jun 14, 2017, at 11:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Looking at the currently available place values, there are still some
> gaps to fill. IMHO we should have something for dispersed settlements /
> scattered settlements, as locality is for places where the name doesn't
> refer to something inhabited.
> >
> > Which term is better understood / used in the UK, dispersed settlements
> or scattered settlements?
> >
> > Other thoughts?
> >
> > 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[John Willis]

What is your definition of it? 

Javbw

> On Jun 14, 2017, at 11:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> Looking at the currently available place values, there are still some gaps to 
> fill. IMHO we should have something for dispersed settlements / scattered 
> settlements, as locality is for places where the name doesn't refer to 
> something inhabited.
> 
> Which term is better understood / used in the UK, dispersed settlements or 
> scattered settlements?
> 
> Other thoughts?
> 
> 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

[Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Looking at the currently available place values, there are still some gaps
to fill. IMHO we should have something for dispersed settlements /
scattered settlements, as locality is for places where the name doesn't
refer to something inhabited.

Which term is better understood / used in the UK, dispersed settlements or
scattered settlements?

Other thoughts?

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