Proposed features/reference point

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The Feature Page for the approved proposal reference_point=* is located at Key:reference_point.


reference_point=*
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: xamanu
Tagging: reference_point=yes
Applies to: Node, Way, Area
Definition: Named landmarks used to identify locations (common in some countries)
Rendered as: hidden
Drafted on: 2012-03-23
RFC start: 2013-06-16
Vote start: 2013-07-03
Vote end: 2013-07-17


Purpose and Use

In some countries reference point based descriptions are either common, or the only addressing system used. Rather than street names and numbers, proximity to a well known location is given. Tag reference_point=yes in addition to any other relevant tags.

Examples of addresses using a reference point

  • (1) From the Old Church in Santa Ana, 400 meters east.
  • (2) From the Embassy of Spain, half a block to the south.
  • (3) From where the Cinema Cabrera was before, 2 blocks south and 20 meters east.
  • (4) From the "Little Tree" 250 meters west.

Reference points can practically be anything that has a defined location. For example: In Managua, capital of Nicaragua, most reference points are from the time before the 1972 quake which destroyed much of the city.

Quote: "In fact, Managua's best-known landmark, the Little Tree, grew until it was quite a big tree, was cut down and then replanted. Through it all, 'from the Little Tree...' remained the first phrase in scores of Managuan addresses." ( Ref: http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/01/news/mn-62534 ).

Example

The Little Tree would have the following tagging:

Rationale

This is needed to get proper route-planning working in all Central American countries. The reference points can be highly obscure to visitors, as they are usually unlabeled.

The existing landmark=* tag only applies to existing landmarks, and seems unsuitable to refer to a historic site.

Voting

Please use {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}} and give your reasons for opposition. Use ~~~~ to sign your user name & date.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Johan Jönsson (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Ben Konrath (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Viking81 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Fanfouer (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The idea sounds reasonable, but tagging won't work that way. You say that many reference point names represent past objects. When you set the reference point tags on a present object, you cannot use name=* for both the present and the past object. Therefore, a tag like reference_point=<name> would be better. An alternative would be freestanding nodes as reference points. But then I would prefer place=reference_point or place=locality over reference_point=yes, because *=yes tags should only be used as attributes, not as "first-level" tags. --Fkv (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
But, yes, you can and should use the actual object with past and present name with alt_name=* as this is referring to the same object and both names are in use at this time. reference_point=<name> doesn't makes sense, because one reference point could have two names (the historic one and the newer). place=reference_point would be an option and has slightly been discussed on the mailing list. Xamanu (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
if it is a past object it should have it's own node when you need it as a reference point and for alternative names there are already tags like alt_name=* so I don't see a problem with the proposed tagging --Dieterdreist (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dieterdreist (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This is much needed in many Central America countries Glassman (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Needed. Don't follow argument of Fkv. Are there really reference points with two names? I doubt it as that just wouldn't make sense. The reference point can stem from a historical feature, but the name is per definition the current and common name. I. e. the Little Tree is called the Little Tree even if it's big or just a stump. There's no other name. Adding a reference point as single node in corner cases? Lxbarth (talk) 12 July 2013
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. as should you if you don't really understand this addressing scheme. I'm not certain about this tag because it seems from my ignorant perspective that it overlaps with place=locality, for reference points with no single physical location ("Halfway between the well and the church"). Such places are obviously verifiable, so I've no objections to them being mapped and named, but why should one not use the existing place=locality? --achadwick (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
We have three problems with place=locality. I'm just resuming from the previous discussion of the mailing list: 1) Reference points are abstract and on a micro level; the place=* tag seems to have a more descriptive propose for bigger areas. 2) Using place=locality we could be driven in some situations that would need two different place=* tags on the same object. 3) Probably it is not a good idea to tag a place with place=* when there is no physical evidence.(anymore). Xamanu (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --seav (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Mikek (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. A friend was just talking about how the addressing worked like this when she was in Costa Rica. Neuhausr (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Lyx (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Sdoerr (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Janko (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. maping from Costa Rica, I'll be directly affected. We need more tropical mapping features like this :) Thanks for the proposal. --Elopio (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I don't have a better proposal. This does not quite feel right... but lets get going. Brycenesbitt (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I'm interested in mapping in Central America next year so this would be useful. Developingcountries (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. for the needs of those we already have tags loc_name=*, old_name=*, reg_name=* etc. new tags that duplicate the old ones are not always supported by software --dr&mx (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)