On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 5:26 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, you can use suburb for all kinds of subdivisions, but it is not
> really helpful for other then find something for a given name. In the
> case of an actual hierarchy ("is contained in") or a quantitative
> distinction ([neighbour hood] "is smaller then" [suburb]) it would be
> desirable to have this relation in the database as well. So
> place=neighbourhood would be preferable to suburb for mapping
> neighbourhoods.I'm tending more and more to think we need place=neighbourhood, especially since suburb is such a misnomer as it's used in OSM. > Yes, I also would like to have an approach to do nested hierarchies as > well as parallel systems for "sub-settlement places". In Rome there is > at least 4 different systems of toponyms/subdivisions (plus other > toponyms for various places), which apparently sometimes do overlap or > not, and are there for historic reasons besides the actual current > administrational divisions. I feel that mapping all of them with > different place values does seem reasonable. > > To give you an idea this is an overview in Italian: > http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suddivisioni_di_Roma (the English > version concentrates on administration and is leaving out a lot of > aspects). We already talked about this locally, but did not yet move > towards a proposal. That's certainly more complicated than anything I'll need to use, so a solution for that should work for my situation. -Josh _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
