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
