I just looked at this discussion and am a bit baffled. We do have notions in OSM that tags mean what they are defined, not what the words might mean, but I think this situation is even more difficult.
I live in New England, and we have lots of place names "Foo Square". Perhaps the biggest is "Harvard Square", and basically that's an area surrounding the junction of some roads, and nearby is a rapid transit rail ("subway", we call it in Boston) and a college that for some reason is famous. Less notably lots of towns have things called squares. They are essentially never square, and rarely associated with areas of grass or other places for people to gather. There are also lesser squares, basically intersections that didn't used to be that notable and now have a "Corporal John Smith Memorial Square" sign. So my point is that if someone wants to communicate to normal people, using "square" as a type of object in search is not going to work, at least in my corner of the US. Here, people simply map a name "Harvard Square" to a place. Someone hearing "Waverley Square" not konwing anything about it would assume that 1) there are multiple roads and 2) that whatever Waverley Square is, it is more interesting from some vague shopping/commerce/civic/historic sense than the things that aren't quite in it and 3) really they wouldn't assume much more. So perhaps then if "place=square" is supposed to have some semantics, then Harvard Square should be "place=locality" and maybe it is. (Even if people live there, the name as used doesn't really represent that.) User interfaces will have to be careful to avoid users being confused that Foo Square is a type of osm-square. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging