The explanation is in the first paragraph of the place=locality wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dlocality
2016-11-21 9:36 GMT+01:00 Rory McCann <r...@technomancy.org>: > Additionally, there might be nothing there *now*, but there might have > been things there in the past, and the name as stuck around, as a > locality. Just because a place is unpopulated doesn't mean the place > doesn't have a name! > > On 20/11/16 20:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > sent from a phone > > > >> Il giorno 20 nov 2016, alle ore 19:03, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > >> > >> it's not untypical that many toponyms don't represent features that are > not prominent on aerial imagery or even on the ground, like "empty" fields > and forests for instance. > >> Indeed the tag is not to be used for populated places. > > > > > > > > sorry, of course I meant: it's not untypical that many toponyms > represent features that are not prominent on aerial imagery or even on the > ground, like "empty" fields and forests for instance. > > > > cheers, > > Martin > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > -- Joost Schouppe OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
