Re: [talk-au] place=?
Stephen Hope wrote: > There is sometimes a difference between what a place calls itself and > what it is. City of Caloundra, for example, is (was? did it > amalgamate?) the whole shire, not just the town. This includes a > number of different small locations, plus Caloundra itself. Even if > you put them all together, it's not big enough for a city, really. But > they got a charter as a city some somewhere, and god help you if the > mayor hears you call it anything else. :) Caloundra is just a retirement village suburb of Brisbane right? ;) anyhow, in the UK, to fullfill the city requirement, you need to have a cathedral, minimum population and a bunch of other things. not to mention that a cathedral has minimum requirements, etc... we just need to find what the actual fedral or state guidelines for naming the things are =) cheers, Kim ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] place=?
There is sometimes a difference between what a place calls itself and what it is. City of Caloundra, for example, is (was? did it amalgamate?) the whole shire, not just the town. This includes a number of different small locations, plus Caloundra itself. Even if you put them all together, it's not big enough for a city, really. But they got a charter as a city some somewhere, and god help you if the mayor hears you call it anything else. :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] place=?
Liz wrote: > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Hugh Barnes wrote: >> Hi >> >> Another locally flavoured tagging question. >> >> I entered some towns recently. I got stuck wondering whether they were >> actually towns, villages, or hamlets. >> So remoteness seems to count for something. >> >> Any other criteria you can think of? >> >> Is it time there were specific place designation guidelines for Oz places? >> I suspect we've been quite inconsistent in their absence. > In NSW the designations of many places are courtesy of an import from the NSW > Geographical Names Board. Some are simply out of date and some places don't > exist any more. > We have cities, towns and villages and they are not decided by population, so > a decision to annotate according to population would not give designations > consistent with the local designation. > There are a number of villages in our district with the largest having a > population about 1600 people. If it was further away from the main town it > might be considered a town in its own right. > > Anyone got any Australian definitions for city / town / village we can look > at? Sure its only a town if its got at least two pubs, a chippie and a post office? But seriously, there has to be a process by which we can get this kind of information from the local council or state government? regards, Kim -- Operating Systems, Services and Operations Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] place=?
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 12:02:49 am Hugh Barnes wrote: > Hi > > Another locally flavoured tagging question. > > I entered some towns recently. I got stuck wondering whether they were > actually towns, villages, or hamlets. > > I think Australia applies different criteria to determine this designation. > If you follow the guidelines at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place, it seems to allow a village > to have up to 10,00 people! Can you see where this is going? That may be a > small place in more populous countries, but I'd certainly call it a town. > > Further, places like, say, Charleville (3000) or Quilpie (maybe half that) > are definitely considered towns. They are hubs for large areas. One town I > wondered about is Samford near Brisbane. It has 3000 or so people according > to Wikipedia, but it's been called a village. (I think it's actually known > as Samford Village.) > > So remoteness seems to count for something. > > Any other criteria you can think of? > > Is it time there were specific place designation guidelines for Oz places? > I suspect we've been quite inconsistent in their absence. I have access to the PSMA datasets, and the administrative categories they use for town points are: * Urban - Locations that are classified as Major Cities of Australia in the 2001 Australian Standard Geographical Classification Digital Boundaries * Rural - Locations that are classified as Inner and Outer Regional Australia in the 2001 Australian Standard Geographical Classification Digital Boundaries * Remote - :Locations that are classified as Remote and Very Remote Australia in the 2001 Australian Standard Geographical Classification Digital Boundaries I haven't dug further into the referenced standard, however. Eric -- Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience...Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem. -- Howard Zinn signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] place=?
Should we tag rural towns and localities as more significant centres, just so rural Australia doesn't appear empty on a rendered low zoom map? + No, a renderer should be able to manage the display - and can display lower significance items when they aren't crowded by more significant ones. Should we tag rural towns and localities as significant centres to accurately reflect their role in the surrounding area, even when they have a low population? + Yes, Some towns have very low population counts, but are very significant administrative and service centres to the surrounding communities. They are a real towns, and not just localities. We should reflect this reality on the map with the place= tag. Population data shouldn't be entered at all.. It just extra information to get out of date, and it can be obtained elsewhere. Lets focus on what OSM does best, mapping to reflect the reality on the ground. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] place=?
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Hugh Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd love to say that renderings should be driven by population alone and > isolated places will stick out by virtue of being remote, but I think it's > probably a spoiler that they won't show until users reach a certain zoom > level. I think it makes sense to fill the map with stuff. If there's no detail in an area 'significant' enough then show me the insignificant towns and the highways which connect them. The middle of australia is not empty. -J > Any advances on these thoughts? I'm getting out of my comfort zoom level. > > … > > And this thread on OSM talk is still very active. For some reason I thought it > had run its course a while ago: > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-November/031816.html > > Cheers > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] place=?
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 05:39:30, Jim Croft did write: > Rather than a categorization, a better value for the tag would be the > actual population estimate.- the use of a value rather than a category > is common in metadata (specifying measured precision rather than > allocating a class, for example). This allows software more potential > and flexibility in rendering and display and removes some possibility > for interpretation error. In this case it would be a verifiable fact > that can be corrected without interpretation. > > just a thought > You're right - this is far superior and I've seen this talked about on the wider lists. However, it doesn't take into account other criteria we might consider here like remoteness. I think it's useful to record anyway where known. I wonder if the ABS data is amenable (license-wise) to import? If not, I'd certainly be disappointed, but not surprised. … On Wednesday 03 December 2008 06:14:19, Liz did write: > In NSW the designations of many places are courtesy of an import from the > NSW Geographical Names Board. Some are simply out of date and some places > don't exist any more. Hmm … so the designation can be an administrative one, too. That makes me question the meaning of the tag. Should this be a consideration, or should we concentrate on giving consumers of the map the best possible picture of reality on the ground? Maybe that's where population figures should come in. It could be up to renderers which tag they value more in representing a place. (Just thinking aloud here, in case you hadn't guessed.) I'd love to say that renderings should be driven by population alone and isolated places will stick out by virtue of being remote, but I think it's probably a spoiler that they won't show until users reach a certain zoom level. Any advances on these thoughts? I'm getting out of my comfort zoom level. … And this thread on OSM talk is still very active. For some reason I thought it had run its course a while ago: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-November/031816.html Cheers ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] place=?
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Hugh Barnes wrote: > Hi > > Another locally flavoured tagging question. > > I entered some towns recently. I got stuck wondering whether they were > actually towns, villages, or hamlets. > > I think Australia applies different criteria to determine this designation. > If you follow the guidelines at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place, it seems to allow a village > to have up to 10,00 people! Can you see where this is going? That may be a > small place in more populous countries, but I'd certainly call it a town. > > Further, places like, say, Charleville (3000) or Quilpie (maybe half that) > are definitely considered towns. They are hubs for large areas. One town I > wondered about is Samford near Brisbane. It has 3000 or so people according > to Wikipedia, but it's been called a village. (I think it's actually known > as Samford Village.) > > So remoteness seems to count for something. > > Any other criteria you can think of? > > Is it time there were specific place designation guidelines for Oz places? > I suspect we've been quite inconsistent in their absence. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines > > Cheers > In NSW the designations of many places are courtesy of an import from the NSW Geographical Names Board. Some are simply out of date and some places don't exist any more. We have cities, towns and villages and they are not decided by population, so a decision to annotate according to population would not give designations consistent with the local designation. There are a number of villages in our district with the largest having a population about 1600 people. If it was further away from the main town it might be considered a town in its own right. Anyone got any Australian definitions for city / town / village we can look at? Liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] place=?
Rather than a categorization, a better value for the tag would be the actual population estimate.- the use of a value rather than a category is common in metadata (specifying measured precision rather than allocating a class, for example). This allows software more potential and flexibility in rendering and display and removes some possibility for interpretation error. In this case it would be a verifiable fact that can be corrected without interpretation. just a thought jim On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the name used in the tag is not important. I don't think I've ever > heard of a hamlet in Australia heh. I think the words used simply refer to > the population of the place, not what the place is actually referred to as > (I think I've only ever heard of towns and cities in Australia, but then I'm > not sure where the limit is between them. A better name for the place tag > would be place_population with values 1-10 ranging from population <5 to > population >10 million. > > ~Cameron > > 2008/12/2 Hugh Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Hi >> >> Another locally flavoured tagging question. >> >> I entered some towns recently. I got stuck wondering whether they were >> actually towns, villages, or hamlets. >> >> I think Australia applies different criteria to determine this >> designation. If >> you follow the guidelines at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place, >> it >> seems to allow a village to have up to 10,00 people! Can you see where >> this is >> going? That may be a small place in more populous countries, but I'd >> certainly >> call it a town. >> >> Further, places like, say, Charleville (3000) or Quilpie (maybe half that) >> are >> definitely considered towns. They are hubs for large areas. One town I >> wondered >> about is Samford near Brisbane. It has 3000 or so people according to >> Wikipedia, but it's been called a village. (I think it's actually known as >> Samford Village.) >> >> So remoteness seems to count for something. >> >> Any other criteria you can think of? >> >> Is it time there were specific place designation guidelines for Oz places? >> I >> suspect we've been quite inconsistent in their absence. >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines >> >> Cheers >> >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > -- _ Jim Croft ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ +61-2-62509499 "Words, as is well known, are the great foes of reality." - Joseph Conrad, author (1857-1924) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] place=?
Hi. The tag used affects how big the label is drawn, and at what zoom it appears. e.g. You have to be zoomed right in to see place=locality. I think the location and significance of the place might affect what tag you use. Personally I'd say > 1000 people is definitely a town. If some town was remote I think I'd be more likely to call it a town than a village, as it is the only thing around. - Ben. On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Hugh Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > Another locally flavoured tagging question. > > I entered some towns recently. I got stuck wondering whether they were > actually towns, villages, or hamlets. > > I think Australia applies different criteria to determine this designation. > If > you follow the guidelines at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place, > it > seems to allow a village to have up to 10,00 people! Can you see where this > is > going? That may be a small place in more populous countries, but I'd > certainly > call it a town. > > Further, places like, say, Charleville (3000) or Quilpie (maybe half that) > are > definitely considered towns. They are hubs for large areas. One town I > wondered > about is Samford near Brisbane. It has 3000 or so people according to > Wikipedia, but it's been called a village. (I think it's actually known as > Samford Village.) > > So remoteness seems to count for something. > > Any other criteria you can think of? > > Is it time there were specific place designation guidelines for Oz places? > I > suspect we've been quite inconsistent in their absence. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines > > Cheers > > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] place=?
I think the name used in the tag is not important. I don't think I've ever heard of a hamlet in Australia heh. I think the words used simply refer to the population of the place, not what the place is actually referred to as (I think I've only ever heard of towns and cities in Australia, but then I'm not sure where the limit is between them. A better name for the place tag would be place_population with values 1-10 ranging from population <5 to population >10 million. ~Cameron 2008/12/2 Hugh Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi > > Another locally flavoured tagging question. > > I entered some towns recently. I got stuck wondering whether they were > actually towns, villages, or hamlets. > > I think Australia applies different criteria to determine this designation. > If > you follow the guidelines at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place, > it > seems to allow a village to have up to 10,00 people! Can you see where this > is > going? That may be a small place in more populous countries, but I'd > certainly > call it a town. > > Further, places like, say, Charleville (3000) or Quilpie (maybe half that) > are > definitely considered towns. They are hubs for large areas. One town I > wondered > about is Samford near Brisbane. It has 3000 or so people according to > Wikipedia, but it's been called a village. (I think it's actually known as > Samford Village.) > > So remoteness seems to count for something. > > Any other criteria you can think of? > > Is it time there were specific place designation guidelines for Oz places? > I > suspect we've been quite inconsistent in their absence. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines > > Cheers > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] place=?
Hi Another locally flavoured tagging question. I entered some towns recently. I got stuck wondering whether they were actually towns, villages, or hamlets. I think Australia applies different criteria to determine this designation. If you follow the guidelines at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place, it seems to allow a village to have up to 10,00 people! Can you see where this is going? That may be a small place in more populous countries, but I'd certainly call it a town. Further, places like, say, Charleville (3000) or Quilpie (maybe half that) are definitely considered towns. They are hubs for large areas. One town I wondered about is Samford near Brisbane. It has 3000 or so people according to Wikipedia, but it's been called a village. (I think it's actually known as Samford Village.) So remoteness seems to count for something. Any other criteria you can think of? Is it time there were specific place designation guidelines for Oz places? I suspect we've been quite inconsistent in their absence. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines Cheers ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
