Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

Sebastian Arcus-2
I'm looking at the following section of OSM:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/42.9959/-8.3908

I see lots and lots of locality names, on what the satellite imagery
confirms to be otherwise just empty fields and forests. I'm pretty sure
I've seen this elsewhere on OSM, in another part of the world. Does
anybody know why are all these place names there - in the middle of nowhere?

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

Colin Smale

Have you tried contacting the mappers who created and last edited these nodes? It looks like they were imported from some official source in 2011 and tidied up in 2014.

--colin

 

 

On 2016-11-20 18:41, Sebastian Arcus wrote:

I'm looking at the following section of OSM:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/42.9959/-8.3908

I see lots and lots of locality names, on what the satellite imagery confirms to be otherwise just empty fields and forests. I'm pretty sure I've seen this elsewhere on OSM, in another part of the world. Does anybody know why are all these place names there - in the middle of nowhere?

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Sebastian Arcus-2


sent from a phone

> Il giorno 20 nov 2016, alle ore 18:41, Sebastian Arcus <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> I see lots and lots of locality names, on what the satellite imagery confirms to be otherwise just empty fields and forests


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.

Cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> Il giorno 20 nov 2016, alle ore 19:03, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

ebel
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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

signature.asc (501 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

joost
The explanation is in the first paragraph of the place=locality wiki page:


2016-11-21 9:36 GMT+01:00 Rory McCann <[hidden email]>:
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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




--
Joost Schouppe

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

Sebastian Arcus-2
In reply to this post by ebel

On 21/11/16 08:36, Rory McCann wrote:
> 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!

Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of land
and section of field has a locality tag associated with it. Even
allowing for places which don't exist any more and other local/cultural
differences, it still seems a bit odd - and begs the question if those
tags really need to be there.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

dieterdreist

2016-11-21 10:39 GMT+01:00 Sebastian Arcus <[hidden email]>:
Even allowing for places which don't exist any more


toponyms often are very old, and often refer to things that are not observable any more. Still the names / toponyms can be observed now, e.g. locals know them, they are referred to in other names like street names, pub names, etc.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

Sebastian Arcus-2
In reply to this post by Sebastian Arcus-2

On 21/11/16 09:51, Andrew Errington wrote:
> It could be tagging for the renderer.  A 'locality' tag causes a label
> to appear on the map.

That has crossed my mind. Actually, that is how the issue came to my
attention - on my GPS navigation software, which uses OSM maps, it
appears as if the area is riddled with lots and lots of villages or
something, on every field. Maybe I should contact the Navit developers
and suggest that "locality" tag is not rendered any more in Navit.



>
> Best wishes,
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2016 6:43 PM, "Sebastian Arcus" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 21/11/16 08:36, Rory McCann wrote:
>
>         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!
>
>
>     Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of
>     land and section of field has a locality tag associated with it.
>     Even allowing for places which don't exist any more and other
>     local/cultural differences, it still seems a bit odd - and begs the
>     question if those tags really need to be there.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     talk mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
>

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

Christian Rogel

Le 2016 Du 21 à 11:30, Sebastian Arcus <[hidden email]> a écrit :


On 21/11/16 09:51, Andrew Errington wrote:
It could be tagging for the renderer.  A 'locality' tag causes a label
to appear on the map.

That has crossed my mind. Actually, that is how the issue came to my attention - on my GPS navigation software, which uses OSM maps, it appears as if the area is riddled with lots and lots of villages or something, on every field. Maybe I should contact the Navit developers and suggest that "locality" tag is not rendered any more in Navit.


All that this kind of names are appearing in the french land registry (cadastre) too.
There are not all appellations in use among the majority of the inhabitants, but the farmers do.
A lot of them are a parcel name meaning to name a bunch of a group of parcels, but a few among them are real place names.
I enjoy putting them and select those that seem to be a identified large place, differing of a description of the form of the parcels (« Devant le Moulin » (Afore the Mill ) versus « Les Bandes noires » (The Blacks Strips).

I cannot see these place names as really old as it is impossible to have a sense of their use without being a permanent rural inhabitant.

For those whose who prefer a route planner not displaying too many names, it could be up to the publishers letting the user deactivate the locality places (choice would be better).


OpenStreetMap Franc displays a mashup mixing OSM data and the cadastre (place names and addresses) : http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/~cquest/leaflet/bano.html#15/47.9757/-2.5714. Let zoom in, please.


Christian Rogel

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Sebastian Arcus-2
Sebastian Arcus wrote:
> Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of
> land and section of field has a locality tag associated with it.

It's very common in the UK, too, for uninhabited sections of woodland and hillside to have placenames.

> it still seems a bit odd - and begs the question if those tags
> really need to be there.

Why not? Be conservative in what you change/delete in OSM, be liberal in what you add.

Richard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

Andy Townsend
On 21/11/2016 11:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>> Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of
>> land and section of field has a locality tag associated with it.
> It's very common in the UK, too, for uninhabited sections of woodland and
> hillside to have placenames.

... and fields, of course.  Where I was brought up the names in use were
mostly just descriptive ("The Twenty Acre Field", "Piggy Thompson's
Fields", etc.), but they were in OSM terms at least "loc_names".  Very
few were verifable beyond "find a local old person and ask them" though.

However "names on a map" doesn't always mean "names of places". Ordnance
Survey data in the UK is riddled with them, and some are little more
than historic names.  Anything that's taken OS data on board without
local vetting will share that problem.  As an example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_End,_Derbyshire was originally a
"village" in wikipedia; it got changed to the curious "a place noted on
a map" at
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_End,_Derbyshire&diff=next&oldid=302498425 
when various people (including me, who has lived down the road for 30
years) said "it's not actually a village!".

Obviously names change over time.  In the Common End case I suspect it
was never much more than a farm, like Owlcotes to the north (another
"place" according to OS maps).  Another example of that is here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/54.5567/-8.2094

There there's a modern village ("Rossnowlagh") but two townlands
("Rossnowlagh Upper" http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5625290 and
"Rossnowlagh Lower" http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5625293).  
Those two were also imported as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5224127 and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/52242180.  The "Upper" and "Lower"
versions aren't signed on the ground and aren't villages any more
(though likely once had significant populations); the modern village
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2349484921/history I added based on
survey, after checking with #osm-ie what best to do.


>> it still seems a bit odd - and begs the question if those tags
>> really need to be there.
> Why not? Be conservative in what you change/delete in OSM, be liberal in
> what you add.

Indeed - but there's no harm in asking the question, and as Colin Smale
said yesterday, the logical people to ask, if you can't find a local
80-year-old, are the people that added it.

Cheers,

Andy



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

Sebastian Arcus-2

On 21/11/16 12:49, Andy Townsend wrote:

> On 21/11/2016 11:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>>> Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of
>>> land and section of field has a locality tag associated with it.
>> It's very common in the UK, too, for uninhabited sections of woodland and
>> hillside to have placenames.
>
> ... and fields, of course.  Where I was brought up the names in use were
> mostly just descriptive ("The Twenty Acre Field", "Piggy Thompson's
> Fields", etc.), but they were in OSM terms at least "loc_names".  Very
> few were verifable beyond "find a local old person and ask them" though.
>
> However "names on a map" doesn't always mean "names of places". Ordnance
> Survey data in the UK is riddled with them, and some are little more
> than historic names.  Anything that's taken OS data on board without
> local vetting will share that problem.  As an example,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_End,_Derbyshire was originally a
> "village" in wikipedia; it got changed to the curious "a place noted on
> a map" at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_End,_Derbyshire&diff=next&oldid=302498425
> when various people (including me, who has lived down the road for 30
> years) said "it's not actually a village!".
>
> Obviously names change over time.  In the Common End case I suspect it
> was never much more than a farm, like Owlcotes to the north (another
> "place" according to OS maps).  Another example of that is here:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/54.5567/-8.2094
>
> There there's a modern village ("Rossnowlagh") but two townlands
> ("Rossnowlagh Upper" http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5625290 and
> "Rossnowlagh Lower" http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5625293).
> Those two were also imported as
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5224127 and
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/52242180.  The "Upper" and "Lower"
> versions aren't signed on the ground and aren't villages any more
> (though likely once had significant populations); the modern village
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2349484921/history I added based on
> survey, after checking with #osm-ie what best to do.
>
>
>>> it still seems a bit odd - and begs the question if those tags
>>> really need to be there.
>> Why not? Be conservative in what you change/delete in OSM, be liberal in
>> what you add.
>
> Indeed - but there's no harm in asking the question, and as Colin Smale
> said yesterday, the logical people to ask, if you can't find a local
> 80-year-old, are the people that added it.

Thank you everybody - this has been an enlightening thread!

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area

Andreas Vilén
In reply to this post by Sebastian Arcus-2
I have seen them too. I think they were imported once, considering the tags in this example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1243337771 and this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26850111

I have changed some of them in southern Spain to more appropriate tags, since they were in obviously populated places. I think the bigger problem here is that place=locality is rendered on too high zoom levels. Today they are handled like place=hamlet and rendered at zoom 15. Maybe lower it to zoom=16 and give them a smaller font than hamlet or render them in italics?

/Andreas

On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Sebastian Arcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking at the following section of OSM:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/42.9959/-8.3908

I see lots and lots of locality names, on what the satellite imagery confirms to be otherwise just empty fields and forests. I'm pretty sure I've seen this elsewhere on OSM, in another part of the world. Does anybody know why are all these place names there - in the middle of nowhere?

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk