Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> writes: > 2011/8/31 Greg Troxel <[email protected]>: >> place names, which have more or less indistinct boundaries. > > just because they have no legal status does not mean there aren't > distinct limits. Usually / often there are. There can be natural > limits (cliffs, rivers, lakes, woods, ...) and man_made limits (big > streets and motorways, railways, ...), the limits might also be soft > or social / cultural / ethnic / economic / structural / typological / > historic, ...
all true, but I'm not sure it matters. >> In my area, towns have boundaries, and there are village centers that >> have names like "West Acton" which have as far as I know no actual >> boundaries and no legal standing. > > Try to analyze it. Where might "West Acton" end? Maybe you can come to > a conclusion, it might also remain unclear for the moment where > exactly it ends (try to look for limits like the above examples) but > it will be clear for some parts that they definitely do form a part of > "West Acton". The point is that there is no agreed-upon value, and it's of no consequence anyway. Different people can have different opinions, and not be wrong - it's not (in general) possible to answer the question "am I in West Acton right now". I have always had the impression that for osm 'boundary' was inappropriate for things like this. Our current node-based place= tagging for things like this (from "Populated Places" items in the Geographic Names Information System) seems pretty sensible.
pgpewunoIfCse.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
