I’d agree with @Zverik. Even for the United Kingdom geonames data is of very variable quality. I wouldn’t be surprised if places local to you are incorrectly located or their names are not immediately recognisable to you. Often they are extracted from old US military maps and transcription of names may not follow modern standards; furthermore in many places some names may no longer be used. See what I wrote about geonames in Pakistan a while back.
Nothing is more valuable than the knowledge you yourself have. I know it is frustrating when there are places lacking in detail, but OSM seems to work best with a slow but steady approach to adding data. The Tortoise not the Hare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tortoise_and_the_Hare).
OpenStreetMap
Discussion
Comment from Zverik on 7 March 2017 at 13:35
The usual answer is, you don’t. Geonames is not a good source: it contains a lot of questionable data, and the license for their sources is not clear.
Comment from SK53 on 8 March 2017 at 11:58
I’d agree with @Zverik. Even for the United Kingdom geonames data is of very variable quality. I wouldn’t be surprised if places local to you are incorrectly located or their names are not immediately recognisable to you. Often they are extracted from old US military maps and transcription of names may not follow modern standards; furthermore in many places some names may no longer be used. See what I wrote about geonames in Pakistan a while back.
Nothing is more valuable than the knowledge you yourself have. I know it is frustrating when there are places lacking in detail, but OSM seems to work best with a slow but steady approach to adding data. The Tortoise not the Hare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tortoise_and_the_Hare).