Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 11/12/2012 6:06 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: Ok, but I don't think we should get hung up on the coincidence between the Australian official meaning of city and the tag place=city. (By coincidence, I mean, if we happened to speak some other language, obviously there'd be no official designation of city.) So...what do we want place=city to refer to? I would want place=city to refer to an urban populated area of at least 100,000 people as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Values I've taken to fixing errors from Geofabrik OSMI and have changed places to match the schema above. Whilst I find hamlet village grate on me as words, they are merely code for an object to be mapped. It's only really issue because I speak English (Australian) and the OSM schema was developed in English (United Kingdom) that there is an issue. If we all spoke Finnish or Swahili we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Alex ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Hi I disagree, I believe the greater than 100,000 test is not applicable within Australia. OSM Wiki says a city is: The largest urban settlements in the territory, normally including the national, state and provincial capitals. These are defined by charter or other governmental designation in some territories and are a matter of judgement in others. Should normally have a population of at least 100,000 people and be larger than nearby townsAll of these apply to those places previously mentioned : 1) largest urban settlements in the territory 2) defined by charter 3) larger than nearby towns. The one 'rule' that these places fail is 100,000 inhabitants - however the wiki guide text is prefaced by the word 'normally'. Taken with the Australian tagging rules page that says you may 'promote' regional centres, I think it is fair to tag these as cities. Chas On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Alex Sims a...@softgrow.com wrote: On 11/12/2012 6:06 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: Ok, but I don't think we should get hung up on the coincidence between the Australian official meaning of city and the tag place=city. (By coincidence, I mean, if we happened to speak some other language, obviously there'd be no official designation of city.) So...what do we want place=city to refer to? I would want place=city to refer to an urban populated area of at least 100,000 people as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/** wiki/Key:place#Valueshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Values I've taken to fixing errors from Geofabrik OSMI and have changed places to match the schema above. Whilst I find hamlet village grate on me as words, they are merely code for an object to be mapped. It's only really issue because I speak English (Australian) and the OSM schema was developed in English (United Kingdom) that there is an issue. If we all spoke Finnish or Swahili we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Alex __**_ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- cbar...@pobox.com ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 11/12/2012, at 9:17 AM, Chris Barham wrote: Hi, some Australian places have changed from cities to towns on; changeset was: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14217241 The ones on the changeset that I think should be cities are: NSW: Albury, Bathurst, Broken Hill, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Goulburn, Orange, Port Macquarie, Tamworth, Wagga Wagga Victoria: Mildura There are some that could be classed as cities e.g. Armidale (NSW) is officially a city. (There are probably others that should be cities, that I'm not familiar with.) Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Hi everyone, Firstly, a qualification:I've not read the Wiki on this subject, so this is simply my opinion without the support of guidelines/rules/etc. I believe, having authored/compiled some detail Magellan maps for eXplorist GPSrs this year, that more important than guidelines or rules that are documented, there needs to be a hierarchy in the data. Obviously, a city in Europe will be much larger than one in Australia, and similarly, ours will be much larger than those in more remote countries. And the size differs, not only in population, but also in geographical area (since population densities also vary). For example, let me just describe the east coast of N.S.W., centred on Sydney: I reckon Sydney, Newcastle, and Wollongong are no-brainers - they're cities. But also, Gosford and Wyong on the Central Coast should be classified the same. Now, while I'm sure such places as Parramatta are also cities (I've not verified this, but I'm pretty sure), from a mapping perspective, Sydney is probably all that is needed. So, on a broad view, you will see Sydney, with Newcastle to the north, and Wollongong to the South, as well as Gosford/Wyong midway between Sydney Newcastle. The next level should then be those centres within the metropolitan areas which warrant attention: in Sydney, such places as Strathfield, Parramatta, Penrith, Chatswood, Hornsby, Hurstville Sutherland (plus, I'm sure there are others). IMHO, keeping sight of the end-use (i.e. a map) is more important than strictly applying a rule based purely on numbers (although, when in doubt, these can be helpful). So places like Parramatta might not be classified as cities when in fact they are, while others in more remote parts of our country might be classified, even though they might not be cities. Any thoughts? Cheers,Paul. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
I would want place=city to refer to an urban populated area of at least 100,000 people as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Values I've taken to fixing errors from Geofabrik OSMI and have changed places to match the schema above. Whilst I find hamlet village grate on me as words, they are merely code for an object to be mapped. It's only really issue because I speak English (Australian) and the OSM schema was developed in English (United Kingdom) that there is an issue. If we all spoke Finnish or Swahili we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Ok, well what might be an obvious error to you is correct to someone else. There are many OSM tags that have different meanings in different parts of the world. It would be good to be consistent within Australia, but it's not important whether our meaning precisely matches the meaning in the UK or some other country. Looking at the wiki page you cite, it's clear that those definitions are intended as rules of thumb: Populations of villages vary widely in different territories but will nearly always be less than 10,000 people, often a lot less.; [Cities s]hhould normally have a population of at least 100,000 people and be larger than nearby towns. Normally, in densely populated areas, that is. Applying that cut off in Victoria would lead to only Melbourne and Geelong qualifying, with Bendigo and Ballarat just missing out. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Mind you, this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Victoria,_Australia Tells us that cities need at least 50,000 people, i guess Victoria is special. Seriously, i don't think a hard number only test is very appropriate. David Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I would want place=city to refer to an urban populated area of at least 100,000 people as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Values I've taken to fixing errors from Geofabrik OSMI and have changed places to match the schema above. Whilst I find hamlet village grate on me as words, they are merely code for an object to be mapped. It's only really issue because I speak English (Australian) and the OSM schema was developed in English (United Kingdom) that there is an issue. If we all spoke Finnish or Swahili we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Ok, well what might be an obvious error to you is correct to someone else. There are many OSM tags that have different meanings in different parts of the world. It would be good to be consistent within Australia, but it's not important whether our meaning precisely matches the meaning in the UK or some other country. Looking at the wiki page you cite, it's clear that those definitions are intended as rules of thumb: Populations of villages vary widely in different territories but will nearly always be less than 10,000 people, often a lot less.; [Cities s]hhould normally have a population of at least 100,000 people and be larger than nearby towns. Normally, in densely populated areas, that is. Applying that cut off in Victoria would lead to only Melbourne and Geelong qualifying, with Bendigo and Ballarat just missing out. Steve ___ 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] cities changed to towns
Hi Alex, My view on all this is that if a place has officially been designated as a city then we must tag it as such. If it is offically a town then we must tag it as a town etc. If we can't find any official designation then either common sense of maybe a state specific rule could be applied. Anyway, in my neck of the woods Goulburn really MUST revert to a city or we risk alienating all NSW residents and making our map unacceptable to a large number of potential users. Cheers Nick PS - Goulburn was officially declared a city *twice* because there was some confusion about it the first time! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 12/12/2012 2:54 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: My view on all this is that if a place has officially been designated as a city then we must tag it as such. If it is offically a town then we must tag it as a town etc. If we can't find any official designation then either common sense of maybe a state specific rule could be applied. Anyway, in my neck of the woods Goulburn really MUST revert to a city or we risk alienating all NSW residents and making our map unacceptable to a large number of potential users. I had a look at cities by population from http://www.statoids.com/yau.html. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place defines city These are defined by charter or other governmental designation in some territories and are a matter of judgement in others. Should normally have a population of at least 100,000 people and be larger than nearby towns. The only real issue where there might be a conflict with OSMI is Charters Towers with a population of 8893 which is well below 100,000. So it might be the Australian special case. There are three rural cities with population less than 10,000 in SA, Goyder, Wakefield and Light but they are regional names, not those of their towns (Burra, Balaklava and Kapunda). As to towns often with a population of 10,000 people and good range of local facilities including schools, medical facilities etc and traditionally a market. In areas of low population towns may have significantly lower populations. and the smallest Australian one is Jabiru NT with 1696. So maybe as a way forward for tagging Australia Population 100,000 - City 100,000 Population 10,000 - Town unless designated as a city 10,000 Population 1,000 - Village unless designated as Town or Charters Tower which is designated a city 1,000 Population - Hamlet That should keep locals happy and still be globally consistent? Alex ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Wikipedia has some different information (with references) that are considerably different. Since the start of the 20th century, local government acts in each state specify the criteria and thresholds and applications are made to the Governors of the Australian stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governors_of_the_Australian_states. Population thresholds currently exist under Local government acts in most states including New South Waleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales (*1919* - 25,000); South Australia (22,000); Western Australia (30,000) and Tasmania (10,000). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City#Australia On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Alex Sims a...@softgrow.com wrote: On 12/12/2012 2:54 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: My view on all this is that if a place has officially been designated as a city then we must tag it as such. If it is offically a town then we must tag it as a town etc. If we can't find any official designation then either common sense of maybe a state specific rule could be applied. Anyway, in my neck of the woods Goulburn really MUST revert to a city or we risk alienating all NSW residents and making our map unacceptable to a large number of potential users. I had a look at cities by population from http://www.statoids.com/yau.** html http://www.statoids.com/yau.html. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Key:placehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:placedefines city These are defined by charter or other governmental designation in some territories and are a matter of judgement in others. Should normally have a population of at least 100,000 people and be larger than nearby towns. The only real issue where there might be a conflict with OSMI is Charters Towers with a population of 8893 which is well below 100,000. So it might be the Australian special case. There are three rural cities with population less than 10,000 in SA, Goyder, Wakefield and Light but they are regional names, not those of their towns (Burra, Balaklava and Kapunda). As to towns often with a population of 10,000 people and good range of local facilities including schools, medical facilities etc and traditionally a market. In areas of low population towns may have significantly lower populations. and the smallest Australian one is Jabiru NT with 1696. So maybe as a way forward for tagging Australia Population 100,000 - City 100,000 Population 10,000 - Town unless designated as a city 10,000 Population 1,000 - Village unless designated as Town or Charters Tower which is designated a city 1,000 Population - Hamlet That should keep locals happy and still be globally consistent? Alex __**_ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
