Talk:Tag:place=square

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

addr:

Squares are often of interest for tourists and navigation to them is sought after. Examples:

I disagree with the need for an addr: tag. Streets and places do not have addresses, they have names that become part of the address of adjacent objects. So the fifth house adjacent to Красная площадь gets the appropriate address, not the square itself. An address is something I can post a letter to, I cannot send one to a place. The soviet government did not sit on the Red Square, they sat in the Кремль, which is adjacent to the square, and uses the square in its address.
As for navigation, the questions from tourists you cite demonstrate that they have the same misconception that an address is the only thing you can programme into your satnav. You can equally navigate to a named point of interest, or a place. Having the square in the place=* namespace provides the advantage, that routing engines most likely have the key already in the database, so navigating to place=square + name=Красная площадь is as easily implemented as navigating to place=city + name=Москва.

--Polarbear w (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree with the need for an addr:* tag by the same reason. Also, saying that USSR government had an address on the Red Square is completely incorrect (Wikipedia doesn't have reliable source reference for that statement) - first, "USSR Government" is a blanket term, which refers to several administrative offices, and all of them had own buildings (and addresses) somewhere else. --BushmanK (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I also disagree with adding address tags at squares, squares are part of addresses, but they don't have an address on their own. You can route to these place=square objects like you can route to any other POI. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

landuse

Only one thing is disturbing me: the place=* tag is normally being used to indicate something administrative - I'd rather have preferred to use landuse=* tag instead which is for describing areas... --katpatuka (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

actually the tag place is used to describe something geographical, it's the tag boundary=administrative that is used for indicating administrative entities / their boundaries. Landuse on the other hand is an attribute and not suitable to define features (e.g. it can be arbitrarily split without changing meaning) --Dieterdreist (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Difference between place=square and highway=pedestrian

What's the difference between tagging an area with place=square and with highway=pedestrian (aside from rendering, which is non-existent with place=square)? Or are both to be used in combination? --Absay (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

place=square is "orthogonal" to other tags, since the square can comprise several things, like a pedestrian area, streets, ways, a park, green areas, etc. It can also completely consist of one of them, in this case the same object would have the physical tag and the place tag. Rendering place=square is applied for and will come once there are enough in the database, most likely initially with label only. --Polarbear w (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Rendering

It's a pity that the place=square is still not rendered in the standard Mapnik layer (at least not for single nodes), although there are multiple thousand instances mapped. You search, you find, but you see nothing on the map. This will make people revert to "map for the renderer" using other tags.--Johsin18 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There are two open tickets in Carto, #2673 and #2203, you can contribute your discussion there.--Polarbear w (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed definition and consequences

With the changed definition of the tag i wonder how the mapper is supposed to decide if an area that qualifies as highway=pedestrian or as leisure=park or landuse=village_green is supposed to be tagged place=square. Is any open space in an urban centre a place=square and if not what are the criteria? --Imagico (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I see setting the place node/area for the square independent from what is on that square, so you would still map the parks, streets, ped areas present. In analogy, setting place=locality or place=suburb would not prevent you from mapping what is there physically. Also, there is a focus on having a name, which was in the definition already: "used to name squares", which of course has to be verifiable.--Polarbear w
I repeat and reformulate my question: How should mappers decide if they should map an open space in an urban centre as place=square - either as a node or as a polygon (and if as a polygon how to delineate it). The previous definition said: It depends on if it is named Square or one of the listed equivalents in a number of languages. Is that still the case (i.e. is Terminology part of the definition)? Note in German speaking countries there are things named Platz that do not match the new definition (i.e. are not open space or not in an urban environment). --Imagico (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you could give examples/counterexamples to illustrate your concern. Alexanderplatz, Berlin, does match my imagination of place=square, while de:Sportplatz does not. But, do we need to defend definitions against multiple meanings of the translated word in other languages? de:Kiefer/en:pine does match natural=tree; de:Kiefer/en:jawbone does not. --Polarbear w (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not questioning the definition at this time, i am just trying to understand it. So again: Is Terminology part of the definition? Does a place need to be named square or equivalent to be tagged as place=square and if not, how can i - as a mapper - determine if something is to be tagged place=square or not?
A few examples i find unclear (not necessarily exactly the feature linked to but the area around): http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477530337 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/166727079 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/236783806 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/22792306 http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/582602558 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464620817 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42322865 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25807565 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42742413 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/362949558 http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1221983699 --Imagico (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the examples. I think the multilingual terms were a vehicle for finding a proper definition. Thus it was meant to include objects that would fit the concept in all those languages, and exclude the geometrical figure en:square or any location ending with de:-platz. I wonder (@Dieterdreist) if we should add the requirement of architectural signifcance and a name, to exclude those small patches of grass that were shown in the list above.--Polarbear w (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dieterdreist - thanks for today's improvements on the definition. What about names, should it be required that a square has a name, or should we keep that in useful combinations only?--Polarbear w (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)