|
Thanks to newly uploaded aerial photograph in South Ossetia, I was now doing some bing sketching and came across a sad relict of the 2008 war. There are several destroyed villages. They already have a place-tag, and some also have a landuse=residential polygon. But I want to ask, how to tag them correctly: place=village seems inapropriate, as there is noone living anymore, and of the village there is nothing left except some walls of houses. Mostly, there are not even traces of walls left. therefore, also landuse=residential seems inapropriate, as noone is living there and the village is also uninhabitable. other tags like landuse=brownfield come in mind, but it is not planned to re-develop this area anytime soon. But I want to keep the place somehow, as it is of historic significance, and also interesting to do some research about the war. place = locality would come to my mind. What can you suggest me, or what is your opinion to this issue? BTW: Here is one example of a destroyed village. Click on "Edit" and see the aerial photograph. You can also scroll north a little and you can see some fortifications and trenches. Really, a scary image ;( http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.14706&lon=43.79476&zoom=16&layers=M |
|
Taginfo suggest abandoned=yes. IMHO landuse=residential should be removed and I don't know if place=village should stay at all. The point is that I can't see anything like a village on the aerial photo - no intact buildings or road infrastructure... Maybe historic=ruins could be useful here. 3
thank you for the input! I was thinking about place=locality. This way, at least the place name remains in the database.
(22 Jun '12, 14:27)
moszkva ter
I would put the name tag in a combination with historic=ruins tag.
(24 Jun '12, 15:19)
ivanatora
1
I now checked some french villages destroyed during WW1 for tagging, and they use place=locality. For landuse I came up with brownfield. Even if a re-development is unlikely in the near future, it fits some parts: buidings cleared by humans, and a further development is pending (most likely, in several years the land will turn into forest or grassland, then it can be changed accordingly). I decided to stay with a landuse, because I want the villages to render on the main map. The name does not render, as for naming disputes, there is no name-tag (only name:lc)
(24 Jun '12, 21:09)
moszkva ter
|
|
I would consider historic=archeological_site. Unfortunatly the associated site_type does not currently include settlement. I feel a proposal coming on... archeological site is not appropriate here, and even a dangerous tagging. Archaeological sites might be considered tourist attractions, so someone might go there because he thinks it is interesting to visit. It is definitely not a good idea to visit these villages. Not only there is nothing interesting to see, it might also be dangerous (who knows, what amount of unexploded ammunition lies around there).
(26 Jun '12, 20:33)
moszkva ter
In the UK we have many old abandoned villages which have archaeological interest, however they are not dangerous. If an area has unexploded munitions then military=danger_area would be more appropriate.
(26 Jun '12, 21:34)
Trubshaw
I do not know exact things about the danger of these villages, but South Ossetia was a war zone some years ago. archaeological sites on the map are an invitation to visit, and this is definitely not what I want there.
(26 Jun '12, 21:39)
moszkva ter
|
