From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

old content


  • Do you have one or two examples of such places? How could this be rendered? -- Ulfl 06:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There are hundreds of such places in Australia. An area consisting of just farms (i.e. no concentration of houses at all) is given a name that can be used in an address. The name might be a historical name for the area, or for an old town, or just made up. I see place=locality as a general purpose tag for naming a place when there is nothing else there to add the name tag to. The rendering would be exactly the same as for a Hamlet in the same location - just display locality name is small text. --Swampwallaby 09:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought this sounded like a good idea at first, but I'm having a hard time thinking about places which have a name for no other reason. Farms, to take the above example, are already denoted by landuse=farm (either node or area or both). I thought about The Burren in Ireland, but I guess that's a nature reserve. What about the South Downs in England? Bit big for something that's equivalent to a hamlet. How about Hollin's Cross, which is the name given to an intersection of paths between Edale and Castleton in Derbyshire and the ridge path from Mam Tor to Lose Hill (at the middle of - the northern path isn't marked on OSM yet. Or Winnat's Pass just around the corner - go 2km south of the above - which is a spectacular canyon (someone's named the road which goes through it) - but one could argue then we should be more specific, but I think it would work here, and it is a farily loose way of getting a caption onto the map. David.earl 12:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I echo David's wording that is is "fairly loose way of getting a caption on the map". It would very useful to capture local, mostly but not exclusively rural, names that a) identify a locality for some historical reason no longer directly evident, c) have greater significance as a locality than the feature they name, e.g. Malham Cove (UK), c) are a common way of naming places in only one or two region of the world, e.g. in the north of England the sides of hills (fells) rather peaks are named.

Some examples.

- Moors, bogs, wood names that are used locally as "places".
- In Sweden there are often sign posts to places that turn out to be a single farm-houses, I guess they have historical significance. Like Swampbilly I really don't like to use place=hamlet but would like to see them on the map with greater emphasis than the name of someone's house.
- The UK out-of-copyright OS maps have a plethora of rural names that could be captured into OSM but can't be tied into anything in particular. I found "The Garder of Eden" in Yorkshire for example!
- Common land in the UK often has a name, e.g. Ludshott Common or Broxhead Common
- I proposed the place=suburb as a deliberately loose way of capturing the way people name the area of a city they live in but I now find I'd like as sort of suburb of a suburb tag, place=locality would be ideal. For example, as I recall, in Brighton (UK) buses go to "The Seven Dials" and "Old Steyne" but they are really too localised to be considered suburbs.

End of long winded ramble! Summary, its a good tag. MikeCollinson 12:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a good idea, there are plenty of random locations in the countryside with a name but no real category as such, but I'm not sure that common land is a good example, I just use natural=heath; name=Woolbeding Common (to take a real example, not far from the above-named Ludshott and Broxhead commons) Nick W 11:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to list examples of "places which aren't a population centre"? Some of these might be covered by other tags (names on islands, or forests, or place=region) or they may need new tags

Ojw's examples:

How about place=* (similar to building=*), i.e. any unknown value for "place" should be rendered, and the popular ones (e.g. bay, commonland, estate) could later be given specific renderings. Ojw 15:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I think this is taking it a bit far. place=locality is designed for just what it says in the Rationale - for place s with a name, but no geographical or population centre to add a tag to. --Swampwallaby 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on what I said on my disapproval, I would then prefer place=location. --PhilippeP 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Voting commenced 6 December 2007
  • Before starting a vote, please cleanup the comment section. I've read it three times and I'm still unsure what this tag is for and what not. There's lot's of stuff related to natural=cliff and alike which should NOT be tagged with place=locality IMHO. I'm not against this in principle, but in it's current form the proposal isn't pretty clear. -- Ulfl 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I approve this proposal (so please don't look at the comments :-) -- Ulfl 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this tag, very useful --Walley 07:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Wabba 08:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. Chillly 10:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove this proposal. ('locality' is a false friend for french 'localité' wich is used as a generic term for any city,town,village ...)--PhilippeP 12:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. Myfanwy 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC) to PhillippeP: that is the origin of the word, it has since taken on new meaning in English - this has happened for countless words in the English language
  • I approve this proposal. DavidJames 16:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal, great for places that may only be local knowledge to be mapped/documented. - LastGrape 21:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. Rural maps around here have many places labelled "locality". This feature is required --inas 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this tag SlowRider 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Swampwallaby 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Franc 04:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Nick W 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --EdoM (lets talk about it) 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Skywave 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Fopper 20:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Steelman 17:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Voting close 20th December 2007
  • Proposal passed

Using locality tag for neigbourhoods

In India especially a suburb is made up of several small neighbourhoods, each having a particular name. Since a neighbourhood tag doesnt exist, how about using the locality tag instead for this purpose? At the moment this convention is followed in the city of Chennai, example, you can see the localities are mostly X Colony or X Nagar and this tag does the job nicely, showing up only at higher zoom levels. So i propose that this tag be extended to include populated neighbourhoods within suburbs as well --Planemad/Talk 11:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

the tag description says place=locality does not have any population and aren't a population centre, so i would say it does not fit small neighbourhoods. --axk 14:16, 12 October 2010 (BST)
Using place=locality for neighborhoods does seem to be in contradiction to the definition given on the wiki, if not the examples. Please see the article Neighbourhood for discussion about how to tag these. We either need to create a new place value or change the definition of this one. -- Joshdoe 18:58, 14 April 2011 (BST)

For populated places or not!

There's been quite a bit of confusion about whether place=locality includes populated places. There's even an apparent contradiction on the wiki:

  • "All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger areas of County sized or bigger."
  • "It does not have any population."

This tag is used over 700,000 times, so I think it's important to clarify the guidelines, or at least to say how things have been currently tagged. Any idea if the majority of them are populated or not? I've never used this tag before, so I'll leave the rest of this discussion to others. -- Joshdoe 13:00, 20 April 2011 (BST)

I don't see why any clarification is needed. This page has stated right from the moment it was created: "A Locality is a named place that has no population." I think that's as clear as it can be. --Alester (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A gap between locality and hamlet

As isolated dwelling must kept for strongly depopulated area, there is a too large gap between hamlets and locality, if those are seen as inhabited. Laking it could be a heavy and unuseful task when definiting a place with 1, 2 and more habitations, I cannot see any inconvenient if we put t hem as locality. Same rendering and better precision whithout keeping from efficient adressing. On the maps, more and more buildings will be visible and on the routing devices, the main information will be the name, therefore an address, not the habitations, the place could enclose. --Ch. Rogel 11:23, 30 September 2011 (BST)

Here is my proposition to try to feed the gab between isolated_dwelling and hamlet : Proposed_features/world_wide_place_default_standardisation sletuffe 19:53, 1 October 2011 (BST)

is it OK to use it with unusual places?

I think that it is OK to add this tag for unusual places - for example I would tag named dune as "name=Foobar, natural=dune, place=locality" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say that it's not a good idea to do this. I talked about some of this in the tagging article. IMHO he correct way forward for this would be to ask your map renderer/geocoder of choice to render the name of a natural=dune, not to apply the place=locality tag to it to force it to happen. Skybunny (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)