Hi.
The remoteness doesn't need to change the definition of the place (e.g.
make a hamlet a town) but rather only change how it is rendered.
A very remote track might show, as might a remote hamlet.
I agree this might be difficult to implement in the renderer.
- Ben.
--
Ben Kelley
Remoteness .. nice!
It is based on population density .. the same argument I make for
lowering the population barriers for city/town/village for Australia.
So, yes, I do like it.
How far to take the 'remoteness' effect on the population barriers to?
If the area has very little population then
On Wed, 4 May 2016 05:58:27 PM Alex Sims wrote:
> The other point I’d make (as I did some time ago) is that the labels are
> “British English” labels and form a hierarchy where the names make sense in
> the UK but shouldn’t be taken as a slight against any area. They are merely
> a series of words
On 5/05/2016 9:50 AM, Timothy Ney wrote:
Re: place=? An oldie but no past conclusion.
My other concern is the rendering of urban centres at certain zoom
extents. If for example, we demote all of the "towns" between
Rockhampton and Mackay to Hamlets or Villages, we are going to have
300 km
f_cities_in_Australia>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yes there is an 'official designation system' ... subject to political
> pressure and separate rules for each state.
> > I think the best guide we have is the population, certainly I think it
> is much better than the officially given 'status'.
> >
> &
Does anyone know what's happening with the osmaustralia.org website, and the
regular updates of Garmin .img files ?
They used to be updated roughly weekly, but haven't been updated since
February.
(I use these files to update my Garmin GPS with the results of my (and
everyone else's) OSM
6 matches
Mail list logo