sent from a phone
> On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former > populated place but no longer has a population. I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no specific tag has yet been developed. (e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so we don’t use locality for them) I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it depends on the actually proposed values. For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more frequent than any “ghost” variations. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
