On 2019-01-28 18:32, Andrzej wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> These are very good examples, I wasn't aware of such places. They would
> indeed best fit addr:locality. How about using addr:locality together with
> addr:town/suburb/village/hamlet then? Having multiple well defined tags is
> good - they add useful information. We are not designing an internal PAF
> database for RM - OSM is supposed to be used for many different purposes,
> some of which we can't even predict. From this point of view, the richer and
> the more precise the language the better.
In the UK, the concept of an address is driven by the postal system.
Everybody knows their address, whether they agree with it or not, and
everybody understands that its function is to allow RM (and therefore
everybody with a route planner) to find the right letterbox.
> I want to clarify what I meant by "almost offensive". We are asking people to
> tag their towns with names of towns they don't relate to, and to add insult
> to injury we want them to tag their own towns as "localities". At best people
> will ignore this scheme, at worst they will get very upset. In my discussions
> about this topic people felt very strongly about their home towns.
Why do you say people don't relate to their address? The addr prefix
makes it very clear that the OSM data refers to an address. Everyone
knows their address. I agree that the use of the word "locality" in this
concept may surprise some, as it is RM terminology. But that's what
happens in data modelling - you have to find a label somehow. The
concept (of a named fuzzy area smaller than a town) exists in UK
addresses, whatever you choose to call it. If we are aiming to find a
way to represent it in OSM, then we have to make a choice as to how to
label it. It is NOT a "village" or a "suburb", even when its name may
suggest that.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
