Joseph wrote: We recently discussed place=locality, and I now believe this tag should be avoided, and perhaps deprecated."
I cannot agree. In the case of Alaska, these named places are so remote that there is no chance of me (or any other OSM mapper for that matter), ever doing a survey to determine if those place names are in use by locals (trappers hunters, canoeists) or not. I'm willing to change my tagging practices and ADD a new and better designed tag reflecting the status of such places as can best be determined from DigitalGlobe imagery but I am certainly not going to remove the place=locality tag from them. Warin's question is also relevant: what about place=island or place=islet? FYI, Alaska currently has more than 500K nodes, 5646 ways and 186 relations that represent either a place=island or place=islet and I'm still adding more of them daily. @MarKus: Regarding the tagging of islands or lake groups (clusters), I've already begun to use the type=group tag and hope that someone will push OSM-Carto to render such relations in the future. On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 5:26 AM Markus <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 09:40, Joseph Eisenberg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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? > > There is already a proposed and used type=group relation for all kind > of named groups: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Group_Relation > > Regards > > Markus > > _______________________________________________ > 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
