Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> writes: > sent from a phone > >> On 29 Mar 2017, at 01:39, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> a name for a particular location, generally known to the inhabitants >> of surrounding areas, and whose naming significant is other than as a >> name for a population center, such that one of the settlement >> hierarchy terms is not appropriate > > I'm generally in agreement with your post, but the part "generally > known to the inhabitants of surrounding areas" might be too > exclusive. I would be fine with toponyms that are only known to 10-20% > (for example), e.g. a few old people, while I would read "generally" > as >50-70%
That's totally fine with me. I wasn't really thinking about exactly what "generally" means, but you are right. I agree that if the people who know the history best think a name is appropriate, that's what counts, even if it's only some fraction of the elders, the map/geo nerds, and members of the historical society.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
