> I checked the local situation, and found the following: > > Spring Valley: is it a valley? No, it's a former rural railway stop.
It’s not also a valley? It’s common for “XXX Valley” to be 3 related features which can be mapped with 2 or 3 nodes if they are not exactly centered at the same place: 1) the name and center of a landform 2) the name and center of a settlement or abandoned settlement and 3) the name and location of a train station. abandoned:railway=station would work if there is still physical remains of the station. Hutton Settlement: is it a hamlet? No, it's an orphanage. If it is still an orphanage there is amenity=social_facility but perhaps it is an abandoned:amenity or repurposed? A residential institution could also be a place=isolated_dwelling if it is not part of a larger settlement Hazelwood: is it a forest? No, it's a former hamlet. If there are still buildings or abandoned infrastructure it could be an abandoned:place=hamlet Ohio Junction: Is it a highway junction? No, it's where the > century-abandoned Ohio Match railway line met what is now the Union > Pacific railway line. So abandoned:railway=junction of there is still physical evidence? Though perhaps not after 100 years > > My point is that you can't tell what sort of thing something is from > its name (or worse, from a translation of its name Sure, that’s why I didn’t attempt to re-tag any of the objects that I reviewed. Only local mappers are going to be able to do this. But if a locality represents only a historic location that has no physical presence today, it is debatable if this is a “real and current” feature that is appropriate for OSM rather than a historical map.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
