On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 22. Mar 2020, at 20:46, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So you say it's purely about the name. Then, later in your response, > contradict > > yourself. > > > let me put it like this: it’s a very strong indication. > I disagree. There's a housing development a few miles from me. It's in what used to be a field belonging to the vicarage just north of it. The field was called "Maes Rheithordy" which is Welsh for "Vicarage Field." The housing development is called "Maes Rheithordy" (that is the street name in the addresses). Should I map it as residential land use with houses on it or should I map it as a field because of the "Maes" in the name? In my town there are housing estates Maesglas, Maesycoed and Maes-y-Dderwen, all named after the fields that used to be there. And North Park, which is a housing estate not a park. Name alone is not a good indicator of usage or how something should be mapped. At best it's a clue as to what might be there now. A blanket rule that anything with "Square" in the name must be mapped as place=square is as defective as one saying that anything with "Maes" in the name must be mapped as a field. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
