Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-21 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:40 PM John Willis via Tagging wrote: Kevin Kenny: > > The administrative boundaries do, of course give rise to corner cases. > But when you have named places that have no residents (so not a village) but > hold some local or greater meaning (such as the stations of Mt

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-21 Thread John Willis via Tagging
> On Apr 19, 2019, at 4:58 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Part of that is that as our population has grown, so have our > settlements, to where we have to give greater respect to the > boundaries between them. > > The administrative boundaries do, of course give rise to corner cases. Where I

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-18 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:09 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes: > > If the name is still in present use then it belongs in OSM, even if > > there is no physical presence on the ground people still use the name > > to define the place. > > Agreed. Around me, my

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-18 Thread Greg Troxel
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes: > On 18/04/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> >> >> >> But if a locality represents only a historic location that has no >> physical presence today, it is debatable if this is a “real and >> current” feature that is appropriate for OSM rather than a >>

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-17 Thread John Willis via Tagging
The only place I remember using locality is where a new very large (roughly 5x5KM) feature has been created by completely removing the original hamlet and building a very large flood control feature made of several individually named features, which also contain parks, golf courses, airstrips

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-17 Thread Warin
On 18/04/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: But if a locality represents only a historic location that has no physical presence today, it is debatable if this is a “real and current” feature that is appropriate for OSM rather than a historical map. If the name is still in present use then

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-17 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
> I checked the local situation, and found the following: > > Spring Valley: is it a valley? No, it's a former rural railway stop. It’s not also a valley? It’s common for “XXX Valley” to be 3 related features which can be mapped with 2 or 3 nodes if they are not exactly centered at the same

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-17 Thread Mark Wagner
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:19:52 +0900 Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I have reviewed all the features tagged as place=locality in 2 places > in the USA and 2 in Europe, and found that 3 out of 4, place=locality > is usually used for features that could be tagged with a more specific > tag. >... > Out

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-17 Thread marc marc
Le 17.04.19 à 15:30, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > Re [1] Grande Cariçaie > If it were a type=multipolygon with leisure=nature_reserve, > it would be clear what feature this name refers to. But that 'll make a leisure=nature_reserve into a leisure=nature_reserve and it's wrong because "Grande

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-17 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re [1] Grande Cariçaie Looking at the relation, all I see is “type=group” and name=“Grande Cariçaie”. If you load the members, you see that each is a way, fortunately the names include “Reserve Naturalle” so that helps. But how am I to know why this relation is? Its not a nature reserve or

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 17. Apr 2019, at 04:19, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > 3) Liechtenstein: 39 nodes. 8 have a word or suffix that defines a > specific feature like "wald" = wood, "berg" = hill/mountain. I don't > know German well enough to guess any of the others, or they appear to > be

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-17 Thread Markus
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 16:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > > @MarKus: Regarding the tagging of islands or lake groups (clusters), I've > > already begun to use the type=group tag and hope that someone will push > > OSM-Carto to render such relations in the future. > > It will be very difficult to

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-17 Thread Warin
On 17/04/19 15:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 12:21, Joseph Eisenberg mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: I have reviewed all the features tagged as place=locality in 2 places in the USA and 2 in Europe, and found that 3 out of 4, place=locality is

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 12:21, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I have reviewed all the features tagged as place=locality in 2 places > in the USA and 2 in Europe, and found that 3 out of 4, place=locality > is usually used for features that could be tagged with a more specific > tag. > Thanks for your

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-16 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
I have reviewed all the features tagged as place=locality in 2 places in the USA and 2 in Europe, and found that 3 out of 4, place=locality is usually used for features that could be tagged with a more specific tag. Summary: 1) Hawaii: less than 12 out of 143 place=locality features in Hawaii

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:26 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I apologize for being unnecessarily polemic by mentioning deprecation. > I have no intention of investing time in such a proposal. I mainly > wanted to suggest that the mappers on this mailing list think about > using more specific tags,

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-16 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
On 4/16/19, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Joseph wrote: We recently discussed place=locality, and I now believe this > tag should be avoided, and perhaps deprecated." > > I cannot agree. I apologize for being unnecessarily polemic by mentioning deprecation. I have no intention of investing time in

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-16 Thread Christoph Hormann
On Tuesday 16 April 2019, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > @MarKus: Regarding the tagging of islands or lake groups (clusters), > I've already begun to use the type=group tag and hope that someone > will push OSM-Carto to render such relations in the future. On a general note: It is very unlikely that

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-16 Thread Dave Swarthout
Joseph wrote: We recently discussed place=locality, and I now believe this tag should be avoided, and perhaps deprecated." I cannot agree. In the case of Alaska, these named places are so remote that there is no chance of me (or any other OSM mapper for that matter), ever doing a survey to

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-16 Thread Markus
Hi On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 09:40, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Two of the examples need new tags created: > 3 lakes with a name: needs a new tag, perhaps natural=lake_group as a > multipolygon relation? There is already a proposed and used type=group relation for all kind of named groups:

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-16 Thread Warin
On 16/04/19 17:38, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: We recently discussed place=locality, and I now believe this tag should be avoided, and perhaps deprecated. To summarize, most of these features were added in North America from GNIS imports; almost 20% are in Alaska alone (>200,000!), and they were

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-16 Thread Anton Klim
Deprecating a tag because it was misused would remove quite a lot of current osm tagging. I also think some of the examples you mention cannot be re-tagged without some proper research that’s not going to happen (do the locals call that place %name% because it was a crosssroads at some point

[Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-16 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
We recently discussed place=locality, and I now believe this tag should be avoided, and perhaps deprecated. To summarize, most of these features were added in North America from GNIS imports; almost 20% are in Alaska alone (>200,000!), and they were used for all sorts of features that are not