On 5/7/25 12:30, Evan Carroll wrote:
Neighborhoods and residential areas aren't the same thing, and
shouldn't
be treated as equivalent. E.g., in my city, there is a designated
historic neighborhood with a name and explicit boundaries, spanning a
few city blocks, and two residential areas with their own names inside
it (an apartment complex with two high-rises, and a named stretch of
mid-rises).
Not just is it still the same thing, but I would argue you're doing it
wrong if you tag a historic neighborhood as a neighborhood.
The reason why we have multiple pages dedicated to this https://
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/
wiki/Historic> is because something that's historic has a
value totally aside from the value of things that are on-the-ground
which is the primary guiding concept. If the neighborhood no longer
exists in the form described, it's no longer a neighborhood https://
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Neighbourhood <https://
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Neighbourhood>
If anything it _should_ be,
* historic=neighborhood
* historic=residential; name=whatever
And that coexists well with "landuse=residential; name=whatever" today.
While retaining the difference (that it no longer functions in that way).
This is North America, the historic neighborhood designation doesn't
mean the neighborhood no longer exists, it just means the buildings in
it are older than elsewhere on average. People still refer to it by that
name, and its borders are contiguous with the surrounding non-historic
neighborhoods, the historic designation just makes it easier to tell
where those borders are since there's physical signage.
- Justin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
