Hello I would like to say that here, in Spain, we are in the same case. The goverment office for population census give in [1] for each unit (settlement) two values refering to the nucleus population and to the dispersed population. Very frequently, there are units with only dispersed population and no central nucleus. They usually correspond to an area with a mix of residential and agricultural landuses with disperse buildings that receives a common name.
Any of the two proposals, a new tag or change place=locality, will be fine. Greetings, Javier Sanchez [1] http://www.ine.es/nomen2/index.do 2017-06-15 12:35 GMT+01:00 mbranco2 <mbran...@gmail.com>: > Martin began this thread after a discussion in the Italian List [1] . > Problem arise because we've official toponyms (they are used in addresses, > in scarcely inhabited areas, where roads have not an official name). > These toponyms are not strictly related to the (few) dispersed houses, but > also to the surrounding woods, meadows, fields, etc > There aren't official borders for these areas, so we'd use just only a > node, not a closed way to identify the zone. > > To show an example, in this screenshot [2] you can read several toponyms > related to this area [3] : coloured dots are buildings with related toponym > being in their addresses. > > You can find (several times) the same issue in the discussion page for > place=locality [4] : in my opinion, place=locality could resolve this issue > if we change "unpopulated place" with "unpopulated or scarcely inhabited > place". > > Ciao, > Marco > > [1] http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Cantone-contrada- > localita-regione-tp5897927.html > [2] https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B65acVCG5NRQTVZ1MFg0aF9jSDQ > [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.5461/7.9607 > [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:place%3Dlocality > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
