On Thursday 09 June 2016, Amacri wrote: > > Provided that marking such areas with polylines can lead to > inappropriate tagging as the boundaries are not well definable, they > do not deserve just a point, as they may represent an extended area, > that can be shaped through its text (often the original shape can be > found in historic maps too, e.g., available in municipal archives. > > For these reasons, I would consider appropriate representing such > places as areas when boundaries are well definable, or through lines > when there is no deterministic way to define an actual boundary. I > anyway would limit visibility of points (nodes) to very high zoom > levels (e.g., zoom level
The thing is if something is not verifiably defined in its basic localization - like if you have a certain name known to refer to a place of some sort but if you ask a number of knowledgeable locals where it is they all point vaguely at some place but each of them a distinctly different one - that place is not mappable in OSM at all - neither as a node, a linear way or an area. If on the other hand there is a verifiable localization of the place - which does not necessarily have to be in the form of either of these three well established feature types - it can be mapped in that form. However if you think the place is not well suited to be mapped as a node and neither as an area this does dot necessarily make it a good candidate to be mapped as a linear way. So far you have not given a reason why for the type of place you are thinking of a way as a good representation (except for the fact that creating a label for it in a map in a basic form is fairly easy). When thinking about mapping and tagging it is usually best to completely ignore the question of how something can be possibly rendered in a map at first and simply consider how it can be represented in the database in a way that allows following mappers visiting the area to objectively verify if the mapping is accurate or not. > In case a new feature would be needed, which would be the most > appropriate name? natural=upland? Please, suggest. Actually you have not really said how you want to define natural=upland. If it is as unspecific as place=locality there is no point in creating a new tag. If it is more specific you need to tell how a mapper can decide if something is to be tagged natural=upland. Note the 'natural'-key generally implies something to be a verifiable feature even without a name. > > Otherwise, would you consider appropriate requesting to enable lines > for place=isolated_dwelling, place=hamlet or place=locality? I cannot at the moment think of a situation where mapping place=isolated_dwelling or place=hamlet as a linear way makes sense. If you can verifiably map a settlement as a linear way you can also map it as an area. Usually neither is the case so most populated places are mapped as nodes. In case of a settlement consisting exclusively of buildings densely located along a road at both sides tagging that stretch of road as place=hamlet or similar might be a good compact way to map it but i have not yet seen a case like this in reality. place=locality is simply too vague to give a definite answer. You could for example think of a certain stretch of coast with a certain name. But in this case place=locality would be wrong anyway because natural=coastline + name=foo would be perfectly sufficient. On a general note - when things are mapped as nodes this is frequently done with the implicit notion that this is a location with a certain tolerance margin. You might think of mapping something with a linear way as a method to specify an anisotropic tolerance, well localized in one direction but poorly in another. However that is not what you actually do when you map it as a way - on the contrary you much more specifically localize it. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
