Subtag for place=locality?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Subtag for place=locality?

Joseph Eisenberg
Currently place=locality is main in the database from imports, and it
is also used as a way to tag a feature which is not currently rendered
by most map renders so that the name will show.

Since place=locality was originally defined as "a named place that has
no population" it's easy to see how this (mis)use came about.

There are certainly places that really should be tagged place=locality.

The wiki mentions places that used to have a population, but are not
longer inhabited; eg "ghost towns" and railway junctions in the USA.
This features are often still shown on other maps, and may still have
a sign that shows the location, but even if they are only know by
local knowledge they may be useful for orientation.

For example, the locations of old mining camps by the river were still
used by fire fighters and police to specify locations of incidents in
my home area in rural California.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place=locality

What we need is a way to distinguish the correctly-tagged features and
those that are double-tagging for rendering. I would suggest that a
subtag such as "locality=*" could be useful.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/locality#values

This tag is already used 65,000 times, but actually on boundaries; it
was used for an import in Ireland with the values locality=townland
and locality=subtownland. (These seem to be incorrect usages, because
townlands seem to be populated places)

Besides the import, it's been used 26 times with locality=junction
(which could also be tagged railway=junction
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Djunction)? The other
values look incorrect; they are all populated places, or backwards
(locality=place).

So I think the key "locality=*" could be used to specify the type of
locality. This would allow database users to decide which localities
to render, out of the 1.3 million

The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
populated place but no longer has a population.

Ideas for the value?

locality=ghost_town seems too American

locality=formerly_inhabited could work but is rather wordy

locality=abandoned_farm or =abandoned_hamlet might work?

Are there other types of valid localities which cannot be better
described with a different tag, other than former inhabited places?

-Joseph

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
populated place but no longer has a population.


I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no specific tag has yet been developed.
(e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so we don’t use locality for them)

I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it depends on the actually proposed values.

For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as 
abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town


which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more frequent than any “ghost” variations.

Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Lionel Giard
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
In Belgium (where i map), we generally use this tag for place without population that have a name ("lieu-dit" in french (look at this wikipedia article)), like a crossroads (like "Carrefour de la Justice" (literally "crossroads of justice")), a field, a part of a forest or some hills. It is often very old names that are shown on various topographic map (generally the name is the same than in the past, as we can see them on maps from 1700 ...) and it is really useful to locate ourself. 

Thus i would not limit to the sub-type that you propose (which are only considering "abandoned places") because there are a lot of cases where they were never anybody there (we can sometimes find that the crossroads are inside a hamlet but the crossoroads itself is not inhabited). Also, locality=junction isn't related to railway (if you look at example, it is bridges or crossroads). So i would use add sub-type for all those "never inhabited places". 

Lionel

Le lun. 15 avr. 2019 à 03:57, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Currently place=locality is main in the database from imports, and it
is also used as a way to tag a feature which is not currently rendered
by most map renders so that the name will show.

Since place=locality was originally defined as "a named place that has
no population" it's easy to see how this (mis)use came about.

There are certainly places that really should be tagged place=locality.

The wiki mentions places that used to have a population, but are not
longer inhabited; eg "ghost towns" and railway junctions in the USA.
This features are often still shown on other maps, and may still have
a sign that shows the location, but even if they are only know by
local knowledge they may be useful for orientation.

For example, the locations of old mining camps by the river were still
used by fire fighters and police to specify locations of incidents in
my home area in rural California.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place=locality

What we need is a way to distinguish the correctly-tagged features and
those that are double-tagging for rendering. I would suggest that a
subtag such as "locality=*" could be useful.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/locality#values

This tag is already used 65,000 times, but actually on boundaries; it
was used for an import in Ireland with the values locality=townland
and locality=subtownland. (These seem to be incorrect usages, because
townlands seem to be populated places)

Besides the import, it's been used 26 times with locality=junction
(which could also be tagged railway=junction
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Djunction)? The other
values look incorrect; they are all populated places, or backwards
(locality=place).

So I think the key "locality=*" could be used to specify the type of
locality. This would allow database users to decide which localities
to render, out of the 1.3 million

The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
populated place but no longer has a population.

Ideas for the value?

locality=ghost_town seems too American

locality=formerly_inhabited could work but is rather wordy

locality=abandoned_farm or =abandoned_hamlet might work?

Are there other types of valid localities which cannot be better
described with a different tag, other than former inhabited places?

-Joseph

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

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Warin
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
From the original start of place=locality

All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a name tag to.

That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had population, or places that did not have a population.

But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city

I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to use' with the others there.


On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone

On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
populated place but no longer has a population.


I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no specific tag has yet been developed.
(e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so we don’t use locality for them)

I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it depends on the actually proposed values.

For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as 
abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town


which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more frequent than any “ghost” variations.

Cheers, Martin 


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



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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Warin
As an example of a locality that has never had a population

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320

The Wheel (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.

No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a navigational feature.

Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too. 


n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:
From the original start of place=locality

All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a name tag to.

That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had population, or places that did not have a population.

But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city

I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to use' with the others there.


On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone

On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
populated place but no longer has a population.


I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no specific tag has yet been developed.
(e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so we don’t use locality for them)

I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it depends on the actually proposed values.

For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as 
abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town


which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more frequent than any “ghost” variations.

Cheers, Martin 


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




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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

AlaskaDave
As a mapper in Alaska, I rely heavily upon the USGS Topographic map layer to provide names for geographic features. Alaska has many places that perfectly fit the definition Warin provided from the Wiki:

All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a name tag to. 

Given Alaska's gold mining history, I encounter such places all the time. There are countless old settlements, gold mining camps, road building camps, airstrips, and even Native American villages scattered around our immense state. Most are indeed abandoned and sometimes I add abandoned=yes to the tags, especially if there is no longer any sign of habitation visible on satellite imagery.

An Overpass query returned almost 190,000 nodes along with 417 ways and 46 relations tagged as place=locality, that are located in Alaska.

AlaskaDave

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 3:34 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
As an example of a locality that has never had a population

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320

The Wheel (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.

No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a navigational feature.

Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too. 


n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:
From the original start of place=locality

All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a name tag to.

That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had population, or places that did not have a population.

But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city

I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to use' with the others there.


On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone

On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
populated place but no longer has a population.


I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no specific tag has yet been developed.
(e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so we don’t use locality for them)

I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it depends on the actually proposed values.

For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as 
abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town


which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more frequent than any “ghost” variations.

Cheers, Martin 


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



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


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg

place=locality is currently used as a generic tag for anything with a
name for which no established more precise tag exists.

This kind of contradicts the idea of OSM which would normally suggest to
invent a new tag then for the type of feature you have.  Subtagging the
generic tag to make it less generic would kind of take this to a whole
new level.  You could take this even further and suggest tagging
everything in OSM something like 'feature=thing' and then
differentiating only through 'thing=*'.

Long story short - to better differentiate what is currently tagged
place=locality the way to go is IMO to create more specific top level
tags (or use existing ones like the mentioned "disused:/abandonded:").

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by AlaskaDave
> There are countless old settlements, gold mining camps, road building
> camps, airstrips, and even Native American villages scattered around our
> immense state. Most are indeed abandoned and sometimes I add abandoned=yes
> to the tags, especially if there is no longer any sign of habitation
> visible on satellite imagery.

Thanks Dave,

What tags do you usually add for a former settlement, or for an
abandoned gold mining or road building camp?

Are you using just place=locality with abandoned=yes, or is the tag
"abandoned" always referring to a more specific feature, like
historic=mine or aeroway=aerodrome?

> An Overpass query returned almost 190,000 nodes along with 417 ways and 46
> relations tagged as place=locality, that are located in Alaska.

There are 750k people in Alaska, so there's more than one locality for
every 4 people!

Clearly most of these were imported, probably from GNIS(?).

In your experience, how many of the imported locality nodes seem to be
correctly tagged?

Could many of them be something more specific, like natural=valley,
natural=ridge, natural=peak, natural=bay, railway=junction,
highway=junction, place=island, etc?

Joseph

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Warin
That's an interesting example. Was the wheel put there as a landmark
or route marker, or just for fun?

If the tag "place=locality" didn't exist, how would you tag this?

On 4/15/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As an example of a locality that has never had a population
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320
>
> /The Wheel/ (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by
> bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.
>
> No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a
> navigational feature.
>
> Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too.
>
>
> n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:
>> From the original start of place=locality
>>
>> /All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger
>> areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for
>> places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any
>> geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a
>> name tag to. /
>>
>> That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had
>> population, or places that did not have a population.
>>
>> But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged
>> disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city
>>
>> I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to
>> use' with the others there.
>> /
>> /
>> On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> sent from a phone
>>>
>>> On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg
>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
>>>> populated place but no longer has a population.
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag
>>> definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a
>>> settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is
>>> living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited
>>> place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no
>>> specific tag has yet been developed.
>>> (e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain
>>> peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so
>>> we don’t use locality for them)
>>>
>>> I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main
>>> tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it
>>> depends on the actually proposed values.
>>>
>>> For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as
>>> abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town
>>>
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values
>>>
>>> which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more
>>> frequent than any “ghost” variations.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

AlaskaDave
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
Yes, that's one locality for every four persons in the state, an interesting statistic. Many of these are indeed GNIS imports and some of those are also tagged with
"gnis:Class": "Populated Place"
which is often inaccurate. I'm certain the gold rushes Alaska experienced during the past 150 years contributed to many of these abandoned "Populated Places". Some of them were quite large (several thousands of inhabitants) but as gold became scarcer and more difficult to extract from the ground, were abandoned. I typically add only the abandoned=yes tag on any feature that either appears to be or is known to be deserted.

I tag a typical abandoned place=locality with only the name, the source, the abandoned=yes tag and occasionally with a description if I think it's interesting enough. Some of this information is found in a very useful public domain publication, the Dictionary of Alaska Place Names, which contains a wealth of information about such localities. I use it constantly in my Alaska mapping work.

I don't have a good guess as to the validity of the existing localities nor can I estimate how many might be actually natural features like mountain_range or valleys but there are definitely plenty of those. Sometimes people tag groups of islands with the locality tag as opposed to creating a relation of some sort. It's a much simpler solution and provides the mapper assurance that it will render. I don't use that approach because I don't think it's correct. 

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:29 AM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There are countless old settlements, gold mining camps, road building
> camps, airstrips, and even Native American villages scattered around our
> immense state. Most are indeed abandoned and sometimes I add abandoned=yes
> to the tags, especially if there is no longer any sign of habitation
> visible on satellite imagery.

Thanks Dave,

What tags do you usually add for a former settlement, or for an
abandoned gold mining or road building camp?

Are you using just place=locality with abandoned=yes, or is the tag
"abandoned" always referring to a more specific feature, like
historic=mine or aeroway=aerodrome?

> An Overpass query returned almost 190,000 nodes along with 417 ways and 46
> relations tagged as place=locality, that are located in Alaska.

There are 750k people in Alaska, so there's more than one locality for
every 4 people!

Clearly most of these were imported, probably from GNIS(?).

In your experience, how many of the imported locality nodes seem to be
correctly tagged?

Could many of them be something more specific, like natural=valley,
natural=ridge, natural=peak, natural=bay, railway=junction,
highway=junction, place=island, etc?

Joseph


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Lionel Giard
On 4/15/19, Lionel Giard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In Belgium (where i map), we generally use this tag for place without
> population ... like a crossroads

I would suggest highway=junction with name=*

> a field

landuse=meadow or =farmland with name=*

> part of a forest

natural=wood with name=*

> some hills

Depending on what the name refers to, natural=peak or natural=ridge.
If neither tag fits, natural=hill could work, or
natural=mountain_range.
Perhaps there should be natural=hill_range for a connected series of hills?

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by AlaskaDave
> I'm certain the gold rushes Alaska experienced
> during the past 150 years contributed to many of these abandoned "Populated
> Places".

I've checked, and I don't see any tag like "historic=campsite" or
similar. This could account for many of the named places I know in my
home area in Northern California as well. I also wonder how the
locations of nomadic campsites are tagged in places like the Sahara or
Mongolia. Nomadic lifestyles are becoming very rare, but there are
still a few places. There are still Irish travelers and Roma people
who live in temporary settlements. I wonder how these are tagged. They
are not tourism=caravan_site but place=hamlet suggests a settlement,
rather than a temporary camp?

> I tag a typical abandoned place=locality with only the name, the source,
> the abandoned=yes tag and occasionally with a description if I think it's
> interesting enough.

I like the suggestion from this thread to add
abandoned:place=hamlet/village for the former mining towns. This key
has already been used over 6000 times. It would also be possible to
use disused:place=* for settlements that are uninhabited but still
have buildings, eg a ghost town.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned%3Aplace

> Sometimes people tag groups of islands with the locality tag as opposed to
> creating a relation of some sort.

There is a request to render place=archipelago now (Issue #3394); I
will look into it. It's only used 740 times, so it would help if more
people start using the tag. It would certainly be useful here in
Indonesia. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/place=archipelago

-Joseph
(BTW, I would recommend tagging archipelagos as simple nodes or as
multipolygon relations that include all of the islands. The wiki pages
suggests using a "type=cluster" relation, but this would be hard to
use)

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by AlaskaDave
There are named localities that have only the most tenuous of
identifiable features.

One example that I've visited is 'Sled Harbor'. It never had a
population. It was just a place where the woods were open enough that
loggers could store their sleds there in the summer. It's now right at
the boundary between protected wilderness and International Paper
land. Since there's an easement for the public to travel International
Paper's road (well, logging track), it's the farthest that one can
lawfully drive (well, force passage with a 4WD, when there isn't deep
snow or mud) to pick up or drop off a party. Because of this, hikers
still use the name. But it's really just a point where the
highway=track crosses into the boundary=protected_area. There's no
formal parking. It isn't the endpoint of the track, since it continues
in farther to abandoned logging camps dating from before the state
owned the Jessup River parcel. All that there is there is a sign
saying something like, "no motor vehicles beyond this point."  It is
still a place with a name.

It did come in from GNIS as 'populated place,' which it is not and
never was. Still, I don't see a good alternative to place=location for
it, so I'm definitely against the idea of removing locations
wholesale.

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

voschix
A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned railways (and smilar),
a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ...
a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ... or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...
This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground any more (apart from a few racks)

Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 17:25, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
There are named localities that have only the most tenuous of
identifiable features.

One example that I've visited is 'Sled Harbor'. It never had a
population. It was just a place where the woods were open enough that
loggers could store their sleds there in the summer. It's now right at
the boundary between protected wilderness and International Paper
land. Since there's an easement for the public to travel International
Paper's road (well, logging track), it's the farthest that one can
lawfully drive (well, force passage with a 4WD, when there isn't deep
snow or mud) to pick up or drop off a party. Because of this, hikers
still use the name. But it's really just a point where the
highway=track crosses into the boundary=protected_area. There's no
formal parking. It isn't the endpoint of the track, since it continues
in farther to abandoned logging camps dating from before the state
owned the Jessup River parcel. All that there is there is a sign
saying something like, "no motor vehicles beyond this point."  It is
still a place with a name.

It did come in from GNIS as 'populated place,' which it is not and
never was. Still, I don't see a good alternative to place=location for
it, so I'm definitely against the idea of removing locations
wholesale.

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

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Kevin Kenny-3
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned railways (and smilar),
a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ...
a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ... or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...
This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground any more (apart from a few racks)

I thought that the commoner lifecycle prefix was 'demolished' ?

I use 'disused' if the buildings are relatively well preserved and might be rehabbed, 'abandoned' if they're ruined, 'demolished' if the buildings are not standing but the settlement is still observable. Most of the ghost settlements that I've visited have clearly visible building foundations, stone walls separating fields, and road grades (which may be grown to trees, but are still obviously artificially graded) and are thus 'demolished.' (The ones on State land have likely had their buildings burnt to discourage squatters.) Theymay also have formations like tannery vats, mine shafts, mill races or cellar holes.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8690778427 is typical of 'demolished' - the road has mature trees standing in it and is not passable for any distance by anything on wheels, but the fact that the area was once a settlement is obvious. (I've found the remains of a mill, a tannery, and a forge in that former settlement, but have not been able to discover even its name.)

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

AlaskaDave
Joseph wrote:

There is a request to render place=archipelago now (Issue #3394); I
will look into it. It's only used 740 times, so it would help if more
people start using the tag. It would certainly be useful here in
Indonesia.
(BTW, I would recommend tagging archipelagos as simple nodes or as
multipolygon relations that include all of the islands. The wiki pages
suggests using a "type=cluster" relation, but this would be hard to
use)

The groups of islands I mentioned to are not archipelagos but merely several islands sharing a name. The same logic applies to named groups of lakes, for example, Three Lakes (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6714525), which I tagged as a multipolygon. Lately, as a result of a discussion on this list, I've begun using type=group for this sort of feature. OSM Carto doesn't render either type=cluster or type=group multipolygons so many mappers will no doubt continue to use type=multipolygon for them.

I'm willing to add a more specific tag for abandoned localities if we can decide exactly which one of the several alternatives is the best candidate. Of  course, 99% of such places in Alaska cannot be inspected in person to decide if foundations and infrastructure exist because they are incredibly remote. One has only satellite imagery with which to envision what's on the ground. That's one reason I fall back to simply using the abandoned=yes tag.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned railways (and smilar),
a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ...
a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ... or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...
This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground any more (apart from a few racks)

I thought that the commoner lifecycle prefix was 'demolished' ?

I use 'disused' if the buildings are relatively well preserved and might be rehabbed, 'abandoned' if they're ruined, 'demolished' if the buildings are not standing but the settlement is still observable. Most of the ghost settlements that I've visited have clearly visible building foundations, stone walls separating fields, and road grades (which may be grown to trees, but are still obviously artificially graded) and are thus 'demolished.' (The ones on State land have likely had their buildings burnt to discourage squatters.) Theymay also have formations like tannery vats, mine shafts, mill races or cellar holes.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8690778427 is typical of 'demolished' - the road has mature trees standing in it and is not passable for any distance by anything on wheels, but the fact that the area was once a settlement is obvious. (I've found the remains of a mill, a tannery, and a forge in that former settlement, but have not been able to discover even its name.)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Joseph Eisenberg
Can you give an example of one of these groups of named islands? If they are close together and divided from other islands in the area, I would use “archipelago”. And multipolygons should be used for any feature that consists of several areas. 

Islands always qualify as an area, so there’s no need to use an unusual relation type (unless they are mapped as nodes and you don’t have good enough imagery to map their coastlines yet)

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 5:57 AM Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]> wrote:
Joseph wrote:

There is a request to render place=archipelago now (Issue #3394); I
will look into it. It's only used 740 times, so it would help if more
people start using the tag. It would certainly be useful here in
Indonesia.
(BTW, I would recommend tagging archipelagos as simple nodes or as
multipolygon relations that include all of the islands. The wiki pages
suggests using a "type=cluster" relation, but this would be hard to
use)

The groups of islands I mentioned to are not archipelagos but merely several islands sharing a name. The same logic applies to named groups of lakes, for example, Three Lakes (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6714525), which I tagged as a multipolygon. Lately, as a result of a discussion on this list, I've begun using type=group for this sort of feature. OSM Carto doesn't render either type=cluster or type=group multipolygons so many mappers will no doubt continue to use type=multipolygon for them.

I'm willing to add a more specific tag for abandoned localities if we can decide exactly which one of the several alternatives is the best candidate. Of  course, 99% of such places in Alaska cannot be inspected in person to decide if foundations and infrastructure exist because they are incredibly remote. One has only satellite imagery with which to envision what's on the ground. That's one reason I fall back to simply using the abandoned=yes tag.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned railways (and smilar),
a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ...
a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ... or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...
This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground any more (apart from a few racks)

I thought that the commoner lifecycle prefix was 'demolished' ?

I use 'disused' if the buildings are relatively well preserved and might be rehabbed, 'abandoned' if they're ruined, 'demolished' if the buildings are not standing but the settlement is still observable. Most of the ghost settlements that I've visited have clearly visible building foundations, stone walls separating fields, and road grades (which may be grown to trees, but are still obviously artificially graded) and are thus 'demolished.' (The ones on State land have likely had their buildings burnt to discourage squatters.) Theymay also have formations like tannery vats, mine shafts, mill races or cellar holes.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8690778427 is typical of 'demolished' - the road has mature trees standing in it and is not passable for any distance by anything on wheels, but the fact that the area was once a settlement is obvious. (I've found the remains of a mill, a tannery, and a forge in that former settlement, but have not been able to discover even its name.)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
Those are good points. I’ve created stub wiki pages for Key:abandoned:place and Key:disused:place - please edit if you have things to add. 

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:15 AM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned railways (and smilar),
a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ...
a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ... or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...
This is a former town, of which you do no see any trace on the ground any more (apart from a few racks)

I thought that the commoner lifecycle prefix was 'demolished' ?

I use 'disused' if the buildings are relatively well preserved and might be rehabbed, 'abandoned' if they're ruined, 'demolished' if the buildings are not standing but the settlement is still observable. Most of the ghost settlements that I've visited have clearly visible building foundations, stone walls separating fields, and road grades (which may be grown to trees, but are still obviously artificially graded) and are thus 'demolished.' (The ones on State land have likely had their buildings burnt to discourage squatters.) Theymay also have formations like tannery vats, mine shafts, mill races or cellar holes.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8690778427 is typical of 'demolished' - the road has mature trees standing in it and is not passable for any distance by anything on wheels, but the fact that the area was once a settlement is obvious. (I've found the remains of a mill, a tannery, and a forge in that former settlement, but have not been able to discover even its name.)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

Warin
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On 15/04/19 22:04, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> That's an interesting example. Was the wheel put there as a landmark
> or route marker, or just for fun?

I don't know. I would assume as a landmark, to form a meeting place or a simple navigational aid. I don't even know if the present wheel is the original one.

>
> If the tag "place=locality" didn't exist, how would you tag this?

I'd ask here, that is one of the things this group is good for.

>
> On 4/15/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> As an example of a locality that has never had a population
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320
>>
>> /The Wheel/ (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by
>> bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.
>>
>> No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a
>> navigational feature.
>>
>> Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too.
>>
>>
>> n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:
>>>  From the original start of place=locality
>>>
>>> /All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger
>>> areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for
>>> places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any
>>> geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a
>>> name tag to. /
>>>
>>> That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had
>>> population, or places that did not have a population.
>>>
>>> But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged
>>> disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city
>>>
>>> I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to
>>> use' with the others there.
>>> /
>>> /
>>> On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> sent from a phone
>>>>
>>>> On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg
>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
>>>>> populated place but no longer has a population.
>>>>
>>>> I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag
>>>> definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a
>>>> settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is
>>>> living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited
>>>> place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no
>>>> specific tag has yet been developed.
>>>> (e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain
>>>> peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so
>>>> we don’t use locality for them)
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main
>>>> tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it
>>>> depends on the actually proposed values.
>>>>
>>>> For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as
>>>> abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town
>>>>
>>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values
>>>>
>>>> which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more
>>>> frequent than any “ghost” variations.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Martin
>>>>
>>>>


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

Re: Subtag for place=locality?

AlaskaDave
> Can you give an example of one of these groups of named islands? If they are close together and divided from other islands in the area, I would use “archipelago”.

Here's a small group of only two islands that is definitely not an archipelago, (as I understand that term, i.e., a "chain" of islands), and have one name to describe both islands, the Leland Islands:


In this case, the original mapper didn't tag them as a multipolygon but applied the place=island tag to the group as a node. I fact, he didn't even bother to redraw the horrible PGS coastline to separate them into individual islands.

Alaska has hundreds of these island groups.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:12 PM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 15/04/19 22:04, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> That's an interesting example. Was the wheel put there as a landmark
> or route marker, or just for fun?

I don't know. I would assume as a landmark, to form a meeting place or a simple navigational aid. I don't even know if the present wheel is the original one.

>
> If the tag "place=locality" didn't exist, how would you tag this?

I'd ask here, that is one of the things this group is good for.

>
> On 4/15/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> As an example of a locality that has never had a population
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320
>>
>> /The Wheel/ (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by
>> bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges.
>>
>> No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past, and it still a
>> navigational feature.
>>
>> Fairly certain other localities have their stories to tell too.
>>
>>
>> n 15/04/19 17:23, Warin wrote:
>>>  From the original start of place=locality
>>>
>>> /All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger
>>> areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for
>>> places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any
>>> geographic feature or population centre that could be used to attach a
>>> name tag to. /
>>>
>>> That to me suggest that places that locality can be a place that had
>>> population, or places that did not have a population.
>>>
>>> But, I agree, that places that had a population would be better tagged
>>> disused:/abandonded: place=hamlet/town/village/city
>>>
>>> I think that can go on the wiki for locality... under 'when not to
>>> use' with the others there.
>>> /
>>> /
>>> On 15/04/19 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> sent from a phone
>>>>
>>>> On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg
>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former
>>>>> populated place but no longer has a population.
>>>>
>>>> I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag
>>>> definition as a way of saying the place name does not relate to a
>>>> settlement or dwelling (but it doesn’t necessarily mean nobody is
>>>> living around there, it means this name is not for an inhabited
>>>> place). A generic tag for a place name/ toponym, to be used where no
>>>> specific tag has yet been developed.
>>>> (e.g. we have specific tags for toponyms that refer to mountain
>>>> peaks, wetlands, lakes, islands, deserts, caves, settlements, etc. so
>>>> we don’t use locality for them)
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure I’d support locality subtags, for lots of things a main
>>>> tag might be more fitting with the established tagging system, but it
>>>> depends on the actually proposed values.
>>>>
>>>> For ghost towns (settlements) I’ve found a lot tagged as
>>>> abandoned:place=hamlet/village/town
>>>>
>>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abandoned:place#values
>>>>
>>>> which seems inline with the rest of our tagging and is by far more
>>>> frequent than any “ghost” variations.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Martin
>>>>
>>>>


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


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12