Deprecating a tag because it was misused would remove quite a lot of current osm tagging. I also think some of the examples you mention cannot be re-tagged without some proper research that’s not going to happen (do the locals call that place %name% because it was a crosssroads at some point or because there was a village nearby? Who knows). Using a lifecycle prefix is definitely a good idea, but there is simply no data to determine what to prefix in some cases. By all means, if one could add a more specific tag they should, but localities are a thing and place=locality can be used correctly.
But it’s osm, so any tag you like, huh? Ant > 16/04/2019, 8:38, Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]> написал(а): > > We recently discussed place=locality, and I now believe this tag > should be avoided, and perhaps deprecated. > > To summarize, most of these features were added in North America from > GNIS imports; almost 20% are in Alaska alone (>200,000!), and they > were used for all sorts of features that are not populated places: > abandoned hamlets, former mining camps, construction sites, railroad > and highway junctions, former locations of Native Alaskan villages, > etc. > > Martin and Warin suggested to use abandoned:place=* for those which > were former place=hamlet, =village, isolated_dwelling, etc. > > Several people mentioned ways they have used this tag for a "place > without population that has a name:" for example, to tag crossroads, > hills, a wood, a field, a pair islands, a group of a few lakes, an > informal landmark / route mark, an abandoned airstrip, a proposed > airstrip, etc. > > However, most of these suggested uses have other tags that could be > more specific > crossroads: highway=junction > railway junction: railway=junction > hill: natural=peak or natural=ridge or natural=hill > wood: natural=wood > field: landuse=farmland or =meadow > islands: place=archipelago > airstrip: proposed:aerodrome=airstrip + abandoned=yes; > abandoned:aerodome=airstrip > > Two of the examples need new tags created: > 3 lakes with a name: needs a new tag, perhaps natural=lake_group as a > multipolygon relation? > An informal landmark (eg an old car wheel up on a tree) - perhaps > there is something for this already. > > I believe that place=locality was a reasonable idea when it was > proposed in 2007, and few tags had been developed. But now, over 11 > years later, we have more specific tags for almost everything that is > currently tagged this way. > > My suggestion: check out all the features tagged with place=locality > in your area. If they have a more specific tag or a more precise tag > can be added, please remove the place=locality tag. > > (If this results in the name no longer rendering in the > Openstreetmap-carto, please check the list of issues and add a comment > if you think that the feature should have a name label rendered on a > general map: http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues > ) > > Joseph > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
