The definition of archipelago (borrowed from wikipedia): "also known as an island group or island chain: a named chain, cluster or group of closely related islands."
A "group" usually has more than 2 members, but I can't think of an objective cut-off point above 2 or 3. If "three's a crowd" it's also a group, no? So I think it's reasonable for mappers using place=archipelago to describe a group of as few as 2 or 3 islands. Similarly, if you use a tag like "natural=lake_group" to describe named groups of interconnected lakes, this could be used for as few as 2 or 3 lakes, or as many as hundreds. Using place=locality wouldn't work in this situation, since it's used on a single node, and this is not helpful for describing 2 islands. On 4/16/19, Dave Swarthout <[email protected]> wrote: >> Can you give an example of one of these groups of named islands? If they > are close together and divided from other islands in the area, I would use > “archipelago”. > > Here's a small group of only two islands that is definitely not an > archipelago, (as I understand that term, i.e., a "chain" of islands), and > have one name to describe both islands, the Leland Islands: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20287799#map=14/58.6562/-135.9916 > > In this case, the original mapper didn't tag them as a multipolygon but > applied the place=island tag to the group as a node. I fact, he didn't even > bother to redraw the horrible PGS coastline to separate them into > individual islands. > > Alaska has hundreds of these island groups. > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:12 PM Warin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 15/04/19 22:04, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> > That's an interesting example. Was the wheel put there as a landmark >> > or route marker, or just for fun? >> >> I don't know. I would assume as a landmark, to form a meeting place or a >> simple navigational aid. I don't even know if the present wheel is the >> original one. >> >> > >> > If the tag "place=locality" didn't exist, how would you tag this? >> >> I'd ask here, that is one of the things this group is good for. >> >> > >> > On 4/15/19, Warin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> As an example of a locality that has never had a population >> >> >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320 >> >> >> >> /The Wheel/ (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree >> >> by >> >> bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges. >> >> >> >> No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a >> >> navigational feature. >> >> >> >> Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too. >> >> >> >> >> >> n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote: >> >>> From the original start of place=locality >> >>> >> >>> /All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger >> >>> areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for >> >>> places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any >> >>> geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach >> >>> a >> >>> name tag to. / >> >>> >> >>> That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had >> >>> population, or places that did not have a population. >> >>> >> >>> But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better >> >>> tagged >> >>> disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city >> >>> >> >>> I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to >> >>> use' with the others there. >> >>> / >> >>> / >> >>> On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> sent from a phone >> >>>> >> >>>> On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg >> >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > -- > Dave Swarthout > Homer, Alaska > Chiang Mai, Thailand > Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
