Please leave the description vague. Every one of us will be able to come up with a list of "squares" that don't fulfil the criteria we will define. They often have the role of landmarks for the population, long after the original square (as empty space for the people) has disappeared.
Or maybe a completely different approach could bring all the different meanings into one framework: place=square plus suare:type= The square type values could handle all the regional variants, including using the local type names. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020, 10:46 Martin Koppenhoefer, <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 09:56 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard < > lionel.gi...@gmail.com>: > >> My only problem with "fixing unnamed place=square" is that i know at >> least 2 locations where the village center open area is definitely a >> place=square (i.e. an open area with some car parks, and open just in front >> of the church that was historically the place for gathering people but also >> cattle (and now used for people, cars, market, village gathering,...)) *but >> they have no name, it is just an open area.* >> > > > indeed, while names are very common, they should not necessarily be a hard > requirement, if everyone agrees that the area in question is indeed a > square / place. Btw., place=locality without a name doesn't make more sense > than place=square, but less. > > Cheers > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
