Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> sent from a phone
>
>> On 29 Mar 2017, at 01:39, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>> 
>>  a name for a particular location, generally known to the inhabitants
>>  of surrounding areas, and whose naming significant is other than as a
>>  name for a population center, such that one of the settlement
>>  hierarchy terms is not appropriate
>
> I'm generally in agreement with your post, but the part "generally
> known to the inhabitants of surrounding areas" might be too
> exclusive. I would be fine with toponyms that are only known to 10-20%
> (for example), e.g. a few old people, while I would read "generally"
> as >50-70%

That's totally fine with me.  I wasn't really thinking about exactly
what "generally" means, but you are right.

I agree that if the people who know the history best think a name is
appropriate, that's what counts, even if it's only some fraction of the
elders, the map/geo nerds, and members of the historical society.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29 Mar 2017, at 01:39, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
>  a name for a particular location, generally known to the inhabitants
>  of surrounding areas, and whose naming significant is other than as a
>  name for a population center, such that one of the settlement
>  hierarchy terms is not appropriate



I'm generally in agreement with your post, but the part "generally known to the 
inhabitants of surrounding areas" might be too exclusive. I would be fine with 
toponyms that are only known to 10-20% (for example), e.g. a few old people, 
while I would read "generally" as >50-70%

There might also be different toponyms that already have dedicated tags, 
besides settlements and dwellings.


cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> This question is about toponyms. Usually these are tagged within the
> place-tags (some might be found in "natural" etc.). Someone wants to map
> named spots in the city, although there are no signs, these names are
> commonly known in the town (one name derives for example from a former shop
> at this spot, another name from a student's fraternity nearby). These are
> points, not areas (in reality), and they do not refer to settlement parts,
> so the tagging that is currently applied (place=neighbourhood) doesn't seem
> right.

> One alternative could be place=locality. The wiki writes that locality is
> about "unpopulated places", and I am not sure how to interpret this. Is
> this to exclude settlements and their parts (i.e. the object with this tag
> shall not represent something with population), or is it about the location
> (outside vs. inside of a settlement)?
>
> Shall we make the wiki for place=locality clearer, or should we invent a
> new place value for named spots inside populated areas?

I would be fine for changing place=locality to mean:

  a name for a particular location, generally known to the inhabitants
  of surrounding areas, and whose naming significant is other than as a
  name for a population center, such that one of the settlement
  hierarchy terms is not appropriate

more or less.

Here's a place=locality.  A few people live nearby, but that's not
relevant to how people think of the place.  It's an intersection on a
major road, and the gas station (petrol filling station :-) there has
been there since before you were born, and it's "Tracey's".  So pretty
much everyone, including radio station traffic reports, calls it
Tracey's Corner.  If the gas station were to close, people would say
"turn where Tracey's used to be" for at least 20 years.  I have tagged
it as place=locality.

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2448006677

Another example is

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2448006676

again, people live near there, but that's not the point.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-03-28 11:20 GMT+02:00 Rory McCann :

> The "unpopulated place" bit is (IMO) just to separate it from
> town/village/hamlet etc, where you should be able to say "How many
> people live here?". In your examples, the people probably say they live
> in the city, rather than the place.
>


yes, this is exactly how I would read it as well (doesn't make a lot of
sense otherwise), although it is often interpreted differently, that's why
I asked if we could make the locality definition less ambiguous. What is
your stance on this?

There are other toponyms with clear reference to something (maybe now
gone), e.g. a city gate (where the name of the city gate often still exists
for the place, although there are now only few remains of the city walls or
gates, in this case I would prefer adding a more precise class (e.g.
historic=city_gate).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

[Rory McCann]

I would suggest place=locality in this case, and have seen it used for
things like that (e.g. in Dublin, Ireland
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11675220 ).

The "unpopulated place" bit is (IMO) just to separate it from
town/village/hamlet etc, where you should be able to say "How many
people live here?". In your examples, the people probably say they live
in the city, rather than the place.

Informal places are fine. They satisfy the "on the ground rule". If you
go to the area, and ask 50 local people "How can I get to $PLACE?"
they'll probably all point you to the same place, ergo, it exists.


On 27.03.2017 18:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

In a recent changeset discussion, we have concluded that the best thing
might be asking here for opinions.

This question is about toponyms. Usually these are tagged within the
place-tags (some might be found in "natural" etc.). Someone wants to map
named spots in the city, although there are no signs, these names are
commonly known in the town (one name derives for example from a former
shop at this spot, another name from a student's fraternity nearby).
These are points, not areas (in reality), and they do not refer to
settlement parts, so the tagging that is currently applied
(place=neighbourhood) doesn't seem right.

One alternative could be place=locality. The wiki writes that locality
is about "unpopulated places", and I am not sure how to interpret this.
Is this to exclude settlements and their parts (i.e. the object with
this tag shall not represent something with population), or is it about
the location (outside vs. inside of a settlement)?

Shall we make the wiki for place=locality clearer, or should we invent a
new place value for named spots inside populated areas?

Cheers,
Martin




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

[Warin]

On 28-Mar-17 03:12 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
In a recent changeset discussion, we have concluded that the best 
thing might be asking here for opinions.


This question is about toponyms. Usually these are tagged within the 
place-tags (some might be found in "natural" etc.). Someone wants to 
map named spots in the city, although there are no signs, these names 
are commonly known in the town (one name derives for example from a 
former shop at this spot, another name from a student's fraternity 
nearby). These are points, not areas (in reality), and they do not 
refer to settlement parts, so the tagging that is currently applied 
(place=neighbourhood) doesn't seem right.


One alternative could be place=locality. The wiki writes that locality 
is about "unpopulated places", and I am not sure how to interpret 
this. Is this to exclude settlements and their parts (i.e. the object 
with this tag shall not represent something with population), or is it 
about the location (outside vs. inside of a settlement)?


Shall we make the wiki for place=locality clearer, or should we invent 
a new place value for named spots inside populated areas?




I would leave place=locality alone.
If you need assistance you would not go to an unpopulated place, if 
locality is changed to include populated places then the map would be 
less clear.


The other problem is that this 'feature' may have no physical presence 
("a former shop at this spot") and so may not be easily verifiable .. 
possibly a history tag for these.. or dismantled ?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

[yvecai]

It's unfortunate the wiki definition of place=neighbourhood defintion 
allows 'fluid borders' and 'well-defined legal and administrative 
borders' at the same time.


Having a tag for informally named places would be a good idea, if the 
*informal* nature survives the wiki definition subsequent edits.
Place=locality covers this for the countryside, so I guess this 
tagshould be populated places-only.


Yves

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

In a recent changeset discussion, we have concluded that the best thing
might be asking here for opinions.

This question is about toponyms. Usually these are tagged within the
place-tags (some might be found in "natural" etc.). Someone wants to map
named spots in the city, although there are no signs, these names are
commonly known in the town (one name derives for example from a former shop
at this spot, another name from a student's fraternity nearby). These are
points, not areas (in reality), and they do not refer to settlement parts,
so the tagging that is currently applied (place=neighbourhood) doesn't seem
right.

One alternative could be place=locality. The wiki writes that locality is
about "unpopulated places", and I am not sure how to interpret this. Is
this to exclude settlements and their parts (i.e. the object with this tag
shall not represent something with population), or is it about the location
(outside vs. inside of a settlement)?

Shall we make the wiki for place=locality clearer, or should we invent a
new place value for named spots inside populated areas?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging