Re: [talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, Australia

[Nev W]

Yes, I decided that ‘is_in’ tag is not needed here and population looks good 
for this suburb with source and fits in with census data.
Nev 

> On 22 Sep 2022, at 6:29 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> + 1 for the name without state, country. Those can be found by the enclosing 
> features, there is no need to add tags 'is_in'.
> 
> 
> 
> Careful with populations.. they might be for the town and not the area.. 
> would need checking? 
> 
> 
> 
> On 21/9/22 22:03, Nev wrote:
>> Thanks Alex,
>> that’s very helpful to me.
>> Nev
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21 Sep 2022, at 9:55 pm, Alex Sims  
>>> <mailto:a...@softgrow.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>>  
>>> In general abbreviations and commas are avoided in tagging OpenStreetMap 
>>> wide, so no don’t add a comma but add an appropriate tag.
>>>  
>>> The Australian  tagging guidelines 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries
>>>  
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries>
>>>  don’t have an example using a node as a label, but the suburb of Cremorne, 
>>> NSW does, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5655122 
>>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5655122>
>>>  
>>> So in the case of Scarborough, the relation 
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11677688 
>>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11677688> should have the 
>>> nodehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421 
>>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421> added as a “label”. This 
>>> will then show up as the “centre” of Scarborough.
>>>  
>>> The node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421 
>>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421> should have the name changed 
>>> back to just “Scarborough” and the population tags moved to the relation.
>>>  
>>> Alex
>>>  
>>> From: Nev W  <mailto:nevwo...@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 8:22 pm
>>> To: talk OSM Australian List  
>>> <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
>>> Subject: [talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, Australia
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> I have noticed that place names are altered to add the state, or country, 
>>> city in OSM.
>>> Here is an example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421/history 
>>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421/history>
>>> I have tried correcting what I see as incorrect tagging.
>>> But on reflection, is it ok to define the place with the addition of a 
>>> comma and further definition?
>>> Is there something on the wiki to point these mappers to that clarifies 
>>> this?
>>>  
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb 
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb>
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, Australia

[Warin]

+ 1 for the name without state, country. Those can be found by the 
enclosing features, there is no need to add tags 'is_in'.



Careful with populations.. they might be for the town and not the area.. 
would need checking?



On 21/9/22 22:03, Nev wrote:

Thanks Alex,
that’s very helpful to me.
Nev



On 21 Sep 2022, at 9:55 pm, Alex Sims  wrote:



Hi,

In general abbreviations and commas are avoided in tagging 
OpenStreetMap wide, so no don’t add a comma but add an appropriate tag.


The Australian  tagging guidelines 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries 
don’t have an example using a node as a label, but the suburb of 
Cremorne, NSW does, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5655122


So in the case of Scarborough, the relation 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11677688 should have the node 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421 added as a “label”. This 
will then show up as the “centre” of Scarborough.


The node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421 should have the 
name changed back to just “Scarborough” and the population tags moved 
to the relation.


Alex

*From: *Nev W 
*Date: *Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 8:22 pm
*To: *talk OSM Australian List 
*Subject: *[talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, 
Australia


Hi

I have noticed that place names are altered to add the state, or 
country, city in OSM.


Here is an example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421/history

I have tried correcting what I see as incorrect tagging.

But on reflection, is it ok to define the place with the addition of 
a comma and further definition?


Is there something on the wiki to point these mappers to that 
clarifies this?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, Australia

[Nev]

Thanks Alex,
that’s very helpful to me.
Nev


> On 21 Sep 2022, at 9:55 pm, Alex Sims  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
>  
> In general abbreviations and commas are avoided in tagging OpenStreetMap 
> wide, so no don’t add a comma but add an appropriate tag.
>  
> The Australian  tagging guidelines 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries
>  don’t have an example using a node as a label, but the suburb of Cremorne, 
> NSW does, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5655122
>  
> So in the case of Scarborough, the relation 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11677688 should have the node 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421 added as a “label”. This will 
> then show up as the “centre” of Scarborough.
>  
> The node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421 should have the name 
> changed back to just “Scarborough” and the population tags moved to the 
> relation.
>  
> Alex
>  
> From: Nev W 
> Date: Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 8:22 pm
> To: talk OSM Australian List 
> Subject: [talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, Australia
> 
> Hi
> I have noticed that place names are altered to add the state, or country, 
> city in OSM.
> Here is an example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421/history
> I have tried correcting what I see as incorrect tagging.
> But on reflection, is it ok to define the place with the addition of a comma 
> and further definition?
> Is there something on the wiki to point these mappers to that clarifies this?
>  
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, Australia

[Alex Sims]

Hi,

In general abbreviations and commas are avoided in tagging OpenStreetMap wide, 
so no don’t add a comma but add an appropriate tag.

The Australian  tagging guidelines 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries
 don’t have an example using a node as a label, but the suburb of Cremorne, NSW 
does, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5655122

So in the case of Scarborough, the relation 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11677688 should have the node 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421 added as a “label”. This will then 
show up as the “centre” of Scarborough.

The node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421 should have the name 
changed back to just “Scarborough” and the population tags moved to the 
relation.

Alex

From: Nev W 
Date: Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 8:22 pm
To: talk OSM Australian List 
Subject: [talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, Australia
Hi
I have noticed that place names are altered to add the state, or country, city 
in OSM.
Here is an example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421/history
I have tried correcting what I see as incorrect tagging.
But on reflection, is it ok to define the place with the addition of a comma 
and further definition?
Is there something on the wiki to point these mappers to that clarifies this?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, Australia

[nwastra]

I expect the best solution for now is to revert the name to Scarborough and add 
the is_in tag

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in
I thought it was depreciated but seems to be useful in this case

> On 21 Sep 2022, at 8:53 pm, Nev W  wrote:
> 
> ___ Talk-au mailing list 
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, Australia

[Nev W]

Hi
I have noticed that place names are altered to add the state, or country, city 
in OSM.
Here is an example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421/history 

I have tried correcting what I see as incorrect tagging.
But on reflection, is it ok to define the place with the addition of a comma 
and further definition?
Is there something on the wiki to point these mappers to that clarifies this?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place equals what BY features

[cleary]

 
I think using services is more useful.  The classification "city" is a
problem as it has multiple meanings (it can mean the inner city central
business district or it can mean the larger city local government area
or it can mean the very much larger area of surrounding communities) but
other classifications can be straightforward.  In my travels (more
extensive in NSW and Queensland than elsewhere), I have found local
government areas to be a helpful guide to thinking about places and
services. Towns generally provide services for people within their own
local government area while cities provide services for people from
greater distances including other local government areas.
 
 
My preliminary thinking is
 
 
Location : named place without residents.
 
 
Hamlet : place in which people reside but it does not necessarily
provide any services to residents. Residents may be in a concentrated
area or dispersed over a wider rural area.
 
 
Village : provides minimal services such as convenience store, fuel,
hotel, primary school or multiple of these ... but not necessarily all
of these. A village usually doesn't have a doctor but may provide some
outpatient health services and/or an emergency ambulance to take people
to a town for medical treatment but is unlikely to have in-patient
health care.
 
 
Town : provides services not only for immediate residents but also for
surrounding places, usually within the same local government area.
Services might include health service/hospital, secondary school,
specialty shops such as clothing store, hardware store, electrical
store, major national or intenational fast-food store, local government
offices, library ... most but not necessarily all of these. Just one of
these is probably not enough to make a town - needs a few or even most
of these. The presence of a high school (or combined primary/secondary)
is a very good single indicator as this is a service for a significant
surrounding area and cannot be sustained in smaller centres.  A hospital
providing in-patient care is another good indicator.
 
 
City :  provides even more and higher level services and is a major
centre for surrounding areas. The high level of services will attract
people from surrounding local government areas.
 
Smaller cities are generally contained within their own local government
areas but may provide services for residents from surrounding local
government areas. The city central business district (CBD) can be
classified as a "city" while surrounding areas within the same local
government area are "suburbs" although it is a matter for the local
government body to decide whether to subdivide into suburbs. For
example, in NSW, the rural cities of Wagga Wagga and Griffith have
central CBDs and the surrounding areas within the city local government
area are officially classified as suburbs. In contrast, the whole of the
Dubbo residential area is part of Dubbo and there neighbourhoods but no
official suburbs. It would still be a city even though it has no offical
suburbs. I think a key indicator is that cities usually provide services
for people from surrounding local government areas as well as local
residents. Services in cities are similar to towns but on a larger scale
and higher level. For example the court house would house sittings of
the District Court, education probably extends to a university campus,
health and hospital services include specialist/referral services. A
town might have a small number of professionals such as
solicitors/doctors etc but a city would have more. A city has many more
shops and offices than a town.
 
 
Then there are the larger cities such as capital cities - they can have
cities within cities. There is central Sydney city (the CBD), then there
is the City of Sydney local government area, but then there is the vast
area commonly known as "greater Sydney"  leading to some confusion
when deciding what constitutes a city.  Within "greater Sydney" there
are smaller cities with their own satellite suburbs. Parramatta,
Blacktown, and Penrith are such smaller cities within greater Sydney.
Then there is Chatswood ... the local government area is known as
"Willoughby City Council" but Chatswood is the actual city CBD (I
haven't though this through but I think Chatswood is the city location
in this case as that is the place where the main services are - the name
of the local government body is less relevant.) Then there can be "in-
between" cities. Newcastle in NSW is not the state capital but it rivals
smaller state/territory capitals in size and services. It has other
local goverment areas within the "greater Newcastle" area making it more
like a larger city than a smaller one.
 
I have no difficulty in naming Sydney, Chatswood, Penrith, Blacktown,
Parramatta, Wagga Wagga, Griffith, Dubbo and Newcastle as cities and the
same would apply to places elsewhere in Australia providing similar
levels of services to residents of their own and surrounding local

Re: [talk-au] place town subject and Download

[Simon Slater]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 05:34:46 PM Marc Gemis wrote:
> with this query, you immediately have a CSV file as output.
Thanks, I'll have a play with this today.  I have JOSM installed, but have 
only had a cursory glance at it yet.
-- 
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789
http://linuxcounter.net 


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place town subject and Download

[Marc Gemis]

with this query, you immediately have a CSV file as output.

Use this  http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/gdp

or copy the query below to http://overpass-turbo.eu/



[out:csv (name, population)][timeout:25];
// gather results
(
  // query part for: “place=town”
  node["place"="town"]({{bbox}});
  way["place"="town"]({{bbox}});
  relation["place"="town"]({{bbox}});
);
// print results
out body;
>;
out skel qt;

see 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#Output_Format_.28out.29
for more options on the CSV output

You can make the timeout longer in case you want to cover a larger area.

regards

m

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/14/2016 11:30 AM, Simon Slater wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 13 May 2016 07:11:39 PM Warin wrote:
>> 2 things:
>> First, I may have mussed up the threading here but the subject of Warin's
>> last
>> thread looked like "ￜￜￜￜ...".  My e-mail client has been playing
>> silly-buggers lately, so was this the intended subject or just my client?
>
>
> Yer... I think that is the use of ? and/or = characters that much up these
> email clients. Sorry about that, did not realise.
>
>>
>>> I have gotten some 1,400 'towns from the OSM data base ..
>>
>> Second, how does one extract data like this from the OSM database?  Is
>> there a
>> wikipage or other guide?
>
>
> I am using JOSM -
>
> file - Download from Overpass API
> Build query ... enter 'place=town' in the box on the right then  click on
> the 'Build query' and that gets the Overpass query built blow your entry.
> Then select the area .. if you make this too large it will time out.
> Download...
>
> This gets you it into JOSM .. then save as to get a .osm file and I then use
> a small script to extract the name and population from that file into a .csv
> file.
>
> I just followed my nose to get here.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place equals what BY features

[Warin]

On 5/13/2016 9:22 PM, cleary wrote:
I agree that there is a need to improve our classification of places. 
However I think that taking population as the sole criterion will 
create more discrepancies than we have already.


I think of it as a guide. In fact most of the OSM wiki to me is a guide.

For example, I live in a Sydney suburb that has a population greater 
than the gazetted "state suburb" of Sydney (roughly the CBD area). If 
we adopted a strictly population-based criterion, my suburb and many 
others with more than 10,000 people would be "towns" in OSM and Sydney 
CBD be a "town". My suburb has about the same population as the rural 
city of Griffith, NSW. I think Griffith is a city but my suburb is not.
Yep. I take your point. Closer to home is Penrith .. a city or a suburb 
of Sydney?
I won't keep going on and on, but there are many questions thrown up 
by relying on population alone as the criterion for determining if a 
place is a city or town or whatever. I think it has to be a sort of 
"common sense" decision taking population into account but other 
factors as well.  But I do support the need to try to clarify our 
classifications and appreciate the difficulty in resolving the issue.

A start on the classification by features? Warning .. draft only!

A city at a minimum has;

one hospital with emergency services
more than one police station
more than one public library
more than one secondary school
a university
more than one doctor's practice
more than one petrol station
more than one bank
more than one ATM
more than one Post Office

A town at a minimum has;

a hospital
a police station
a public library
a secondary school
a doctor's practice
a newsagent
a petrol station
a bank
a Post Office

A village at a minimum has;

a convenience store



On Fri, May 13, 2016, at 07:11 PM, Warin wrote:

On 5/13/2016 11:36 AM, Warin wrote:

On 5/6/2016 9:51 AM, Simon Slater wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 10:10:35 AM Ian Sergeant wrote:


1. Any attempt to make something render on sparse parts of the map, is
a rendering issue.  Any renderer is free to pre-process the data based
on a population and remoteness algorithm if they wish.

2. Personally, I make anything a town if it has services.  If it has a
pub, a take-away, a supermarket, a post-office, and a fuel station,
then it's a town.  I save hamlet for a population grouping without any
services, and a locality for a place where there is essentially no
population clustering.  This is a natural skew towards remoter
destinations becoming towns, because they are service towns for
surrounding areas, rather than necessarily having large populations
themselves.


Post offices may be a good guide.  25 years ago there were at least 4 post 
offices
between here (Swan Hill) and Kerang.  Now there is only one at Lake Boga, but
all the other post codes are still in place, mail routing through either
Kerang or Swan Hill.

Australia post has;

 *
Post Office (PO) and
 *
Local Post Office (LPO)

The LPO is usually smaller and within another business ..usually a local 
convenience store.

The ABS has this

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/1d90c1ef4ac928d5ca2570ec0018e4f7!OpenDocument 


"*Identifying towns*

In this review *small towns*have been defined as population centres with between 
1,000 and 19,999 people. Towns might ideally be distinguished from 
cities and from smaller rural communities according to functional 
criteria, such as the presence or absence of various educational, 
medical, recreational and retail services, together perhaps with 
administrative criteria such as whether or not a city or town 
council operated from within the town. While such conceptual 
distinctions might be made, it is difficult to put such definitions 
into practice. The above population size was therefore considered 
the most suitable alternative which would generally encompass these 
criteria."


I tend to concur with this - simplest to implement and verify. I do 
note the 'medical' services that ABS have for identifying towns etc, 
that may be a usefull criteria in addition to number of pubs, petrol 
stations etc.




I have gotten some 1,400 'towns from the OSM data base .. many of these have no 
population given, but from those that do;
Penrith 178465
Bunbury 64385
Maitland61431
Palmerston  46618
Melton  45624
Port Macquarie  41723
Sunbury 33062
Pakenham32911
Nowra   32556
Albany  30656
Devonport   29051
Goulburn21484
Busselton   21407
Ocean Grove 16093
Bacchus Marsh   14913
Port Hedland13772
Torquay 13339
Coolum Beach13154
Broome  12766
Batemans Bay12000
Lara11192
Drysdale10927

Compare this to the 'cities';
  
Charters Towers	8,234

Charleville 4,700
Caloundra   

Re: [talk-au] place town subject and Download

[Warin]

On 5/14/2016 11:30 AM, Simon Slater wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2016 07:11:39 PM Warin wrote:
2 things:
First, I may have mussed up the threading here but the subject of Warin's last
thread looked like "ￜￜￜￜ...".  My e-mail client has been playing
silly-buggers lately, so was this the intended subject or just my client?


Yer... I think that is the use of ? and/or = characters that much up these 
email clients. Sorry about that, did not realise.




I have gotten some 1,400 'towns from the OSM data base ..

Second, how does one extract data like this from the OSM database?  Is there a
wikipage or other guide?


I am using JOSM -

file - Download from Overpass API
Build query ... enter 'place=town' in the box on the right then  click on the 
'Build query' and that gets the Overpass query built blow your entry.
Then select the area .. if you make this too large it will time out. Download...

This gets you it into JOSM .. then save as to get a .osm file and I then use a 
small script to extract the name and population from that file into a .csv file.

I just followed my nose to get here.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place=? and oldie but a goodie.

[Simon Slater]

On Fri, 13 May 2016 07:11:39 PM Warin wrote:
2 things:
First, I may have mussed up the threading here but the subject of Warin's last 
thread looked like "ￜￜￜￜ...".  My e-mail client has been playing 
silly-buggers lately, so was this the intended subject or just my client?

> I have gotten some 1,400 'towns from the OSM data base ..

Second, how does one extract data like this from the OSM database?  Is there a 
wikipage or other guide?
-- 
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789
http://linuxcounter.net 


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place=? An oldie but no past conclusion.

[Simon Slater]

On Thu, 5 May 2016 10:10:35 AM Ian Sergeant wrote:
> 1. Any attempt to make something render on sparse parts of the map, is
> a rendering issue.  Any renderer is free to pre-process the data based
> on a population and remoteness algorithm if they wish.
> 
> 2. Personally, I make anything a town if it has services.  If it has a
> pub, a take-away, a supermarket, a post-office, and a fuel station,
> then it's a town.  I save hamlet for a population grouping without any
> services, and a locality for a place where there is essentially no
> population clustering.  This is a natural skew towards remoter
> destinations becoming towns, because they are service towns for
> surrounding areas, rather than necessarily having large populations
> themselves.

Post offices may be a good guide.  25 years ago there were at least 4 post 
offices 
between here (Swan Hill) and Kerang.  Now there is only one at Lake Boga, but 
all the other post codes are still in place, mail routing through either 
Kerang or Swan Hill.

The other places, Lake Charm, Mystic Park and Tresco, have a small group of 
houses, Lk Charm has a shop and caravan park, Mystic has a pub.

The passenger train doesn't stop at any of these stations anymore either, only 
the grain trains.
-- 
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789
http://linuxcounter.net 


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place by remoteness

[Ben Kelley]

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
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Windows XP PC
On 5 May 2016 10:26, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 1 person could be defined as a
> city? NO, certain things are expected in a city .. certainly more than 1
> person!
> So there are limits as to how far to go in this direction.
>
> Would need to revert to
> city>100,000>town>10,000>village>200>hamlet>100
> for 'Major cities' and 'Inner regional' areas -
> as judged by the 'remoteness' thing as I can see no reason not to use the
> world wide population points here as the population densities are similar?
> These areas are in close proximity and would be similar around the world
> so the chosen population points should be suitable.
>
> The 'Outer Regional' areas ... about half the population density so
> city>50,000>town>5,000>village>100>hamlet>50
>  The 'Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
> city>25,000>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
> The 'Very Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
> city>12,500>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
>
> Err Winton would be come a village .. Longreach becomes a town... would
> that be acceptable?
> I think that works for my perception of those places.
>
> It will add to the complexity but be justifiable technically. Is it worth
> the added complexity?
>
> On 4/05/2016 6:28 PM, Alex Sims wrote:
>
> I’ve had an involvement in this discussion in the past and wonder if a way
> forward might be to include an adjusting factor for remoteness.
>
> If you have a look at the map at
> http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure
>
> which shows the Australian Remoteness Index this suggests that we could
> define town, hamlet, etc according to population but then adjust the
> population limits downward for remote areas.
>
> 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 that define the level of population centre.
>
> Looking at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban_and_rural
> this seems to support and adjustment based on remoteness in the Australian
> context.
>
> Alex
>
> On 4 May 2016, at 8:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/05/2016 12:50 AM, Christopher Barham wrote:
>
>
> On 03 May 2016, at 14:22, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 
>
> Why judge on the population?
>
> Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical, Education ... they go 
> hand in hand.
>
> Populations are usually stated - on the entry signs to towns, villages .. and 
> collected by the ABS. So verifiable and accessible.
>
> Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts quickly.
>
> Usually the relationship between population centres remains fairly static .. 
> if one grows so do the surrounding ones.
>
> Much easier to quickly asses and correctly tag this way. So it satisfies the 
> KISS principle.
>
> 
>
> City is not just a function of population - It’s can also be a political
> appointment/status? - e.g. Charters Towers and Redcliffe are cities :
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_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'.
>
> --
> I did leave out of the original post that the ABS data may include more
> 'cities' with populations over 10,000 than the present OSM data base
> contains ... yet to sort that out.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place by remoteness

[Warin]

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 1 person could be defined as 
a city? NO, certain things are expected in a city .. certainly more than 
1 person!

So there are limits as to how far to go in this direction.

Would need to revert to
city>100,000>town>10,000>village>200>hamlet>100
for 'Major cities' and 'Inner regional' areas -
as judged by the 'remoteness' thing as I can see no reason not to use 
the world wide population points here as the population densities are 
similar?
These areas are in close proximity and would be similar around the world 
so the chosen population points should be suitable.


The 'Outer Regional' areas ... about half the population density so
city>50,000>town>5,000>village>100>hamlet>50
 The 'Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
city>25,000>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
The 'Very Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
city>12,500>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25

Err Winton would be come a village .. Longreach becomes a town... would 
that be acceptable?

I think that works for my perception of those places.

It will add to the complexity but be justifiable technically. Is it 
worth the added complexity?


On 4/05/2016 6:28 PM, Alex Sims wrote:
I’ve had an involvement in this discussion in the past and wonder if a 
way forward might be to include an adjusting factor for remoteness.


If you have a look at the map at 
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure


which shows the Australian Remoteness Index this suggests that we 
could define town, hamlet, etc according to population but then adjust 
the population limits downward for remote areas.


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 that define the level of population 
centre.


Looking at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban_and_rural 
this seems to support and adjustment based on remoteness in the 
Australian context.


Alex

On 4 May 2016, at 8:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 4/05/2016 12:50 AM, Christopher Barham wrote:



On 03 May 2016, at 14:22, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:





Why judge on the population?
Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical, Education 
... they go hand in hand.
Populations are usually stated - on the entry signs to towns, 
villages .. and collected by the ABS. So verifiable and accessible.

Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts quickly.
Usually the relationship between population centres remains fairly 
static .. if one grows so do the surrounding ones.
Much easier to quickly asses and correctly tag this way. So it 
satisfies the KISS principle.



City is not just a function of population - It’s can also be a 
political appointment/status? - e.g. Charters Towers and Redcliffe 
are cities : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_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'.


--
I did leave out of the original post that the ABS data may include 
more 'cities' with populations over 10,000 than the present OSM data 
base contains ... yet to sort that out.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place=? An oldie but no past conclusion.

[Simon Slater]

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 that define the level of population centre. 

Looking at the end of this post: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2008-December/001089.html
made me think of our own experience with small towns.

In 1988 we moved to Kerang, Vic which had a population of 5,500, 5 pubs, 1 
small supermarket, 1 large supermarket with bottleshop, 8 churches and little 
industry.  However, Kerang supported a regional farming population of 20,000.  
When we moved 50 miles up the road 10 years later, the population was 4,500.  
10 years later 1 pub burned down, 5 years later so did another.  Now the 
population is below 4000 I think, but the regional population serviced is 
still about the same and there is more industry in the town.

I assume computerization and mechanization means the increase in industry 
without population increase.  Also with amalgamation of farms, many houses are 
now available for those who work in town, so these would not be counted in the 
town stats.

My thought was to look at the amenities etc listed for a place within OSM 
itself for use as a guide to classification.  Would this be a purely subjective 
process ie looking at the map, or can this type of data be easily queried from 
the database for a more objective approach?

In the latter case, weights could be applied to different amenities, 
combination with other sources eg remoteness index, etc ...

The caveat here is that the more amenities mapped correlate with activity / 
interest in that location.
-- 
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789
http://linuxcounter.net 


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place= rendering

[Warin]

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 of highway with nothing shown at higher levels.  At present, 
each of the small towns (may have 1 pub, some services, a shop and a 
few houses), are labelled as towns, and appear nicely if you zoom to a 
level where you can see Mackay and Rockhampton on the same map.  These 
"towns" indicate to drivers where they are likely to find at least 
some services easily.  It is difficult, unless you know the areas, to 
zoom in on a particular area to locate a "village" or "hamlet" on a 
300km piece of highway, where the "towns: are 30-40km apart. The same, 
is likely to happen between almost all "cities" in Queensland, e.g. 
Rockhampton - Emerald (300km) , Emerald to Longreach (500km) , Mackay 
to Bowen (200km), etc


I suspect, an extra tag would have to be added to ensure they render 
at higher zoom levels, which ultimately bring us back to simply 
calling them "towns".


This is a rendering issue.
The same issue exists for roads where none are shown when zoomed out.

It has been previously suggested that renders increase the amount of 
detail seen in those areas where little to nothing is shown.



My concern is that there is a clear inconsistency in the present 
tagging... example


Winton is tagged as more significant than Longreach .. where as 'on the 
ground' Longreach is more significant than Winton - more shops, pubs, 
doctors and yes more people!


I think the 'remoteness' may be the best way to resolve the issue for 
places.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place=? An oldie but no past conclusion.

[Warin]

On 4/05/2016 12:50 AM, Christopher Barham wrote:


On 03 May 2016, at 14:22, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:






Why judge on the population?
Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical, Education ... 
they go hand in hand.
Populations are usually stated - on the entry signs to towns, 
villages .. and collected by the ABS. So verifiable and accessible.

Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts quickly.
Usually the relationship between population centres remains fairly 
static .. if one grows so do the surrounding ones.
Much easier to quickly asses and correctly tag this way. So it 
satisfies the KISS principle.



City is not just a function of population - It’s can also be a 
political appointment/status? - e.g. Charters Towers and Redcliffe are 
cities : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_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'.


--
I did leave out of the original post that the ABS data may include more 
'cities' with populations over 10,000 than the present OSM data base 
contains ... yet to sort that out.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place=? An oldie but no past conclusion.

[cleary]

 
>From what you have written, I think you are probably right to change
classificaiton of Quobba Station to village rather than town.
 
In regard to smaller rural centres, I have also been wondering about
classifications. In South Australia, some rural properties constitute
their own official location with their own allocated postcode. In one
case the farm is known as "Oakvale" but the official Government-approved
name for the location with defined boundaries and its own allocated
postcode is "Oakvale Station". I had originally labelled it as
place=farm but the OSM WIki says that if the farm is not part of a
larger settlement, then it should be labelled as "isolated_dwelling".
Since it is its own suburb and not part of a larger settlement, I have
labelled it as place=isolated_dwelling.
 
"Hamlet" can be a small population but does not necessarily have a
central location- thus Mossgiel in NSW has a defined area and postcode
with scattered farms in the area but there is no centre with shops or
services - thus it is tagged as place=hamlet. Once a place has shops,
pub, other services etc. I think it qualifies as a "village".  But two
places could be villages even though one is a fair bit larger than the
other - if you can get food and fuel etc. but it's not big enough to be
a town, then "village" is a good classification.
 
In NSW, "city" is an official Local Government Area status approved by
Government so that some larger towns (and their surrounding areas) are
designated as cities e.g Albury, Waga Wagga, Griffith and locations
within their city boundaries are officially "suburbs". The "suburb" with
the same name as the LGA is usually also identified as "city". In
Sydney, some major suburban centres such as Parramatta are identified by
Government as cities. I think the official classification works fairly
well in NSW  and is useful guide for tagging in OSM but not sure about
other states.
 
Then there are areas that have defined boundaries as "suburb" and
designated postcodes but have no permanent population as far as I know
(such as Jagungal Wilderness in NSW or Danggali in SA). Not sure how to
classify them. "Locality" is used for much smaller places that have no
boundaries, postcode or population and seems not the right tag for
larger areas with defined boundaries.
 
 
 
On Tue, May 3, 2016, at 10:22 PM, Warin wrote:
>
> Hi,


> I came across Quobba Station and Canarvon where Canarvon is a
> 'village' and Quobba Station is a 'town'. I know Canarvon is larger
> than Quobba Station! So I re-tagged Quobba Station as 'village'. But
> I wondered on it.. so looked up the OSMwiki .. not much help... the
> Australian tagging guidelines ... errr not really. I then considered
> getting all the Australian OSM data on places with the population
> data, Got the cities data fine, but the towns data is too large a
> single bite and the server objected. Fine, I worked on the city
> data. Some 90 are set as cities... I'll ignore those above 10,000
> people and list the others here so you have an idea of those that
> maybe reclassified as 'towns' under my proposal. If a place is close
> to the 10,000 mark and there are no others around that location then
> I'd consider it a city, but other wise a town. Charters Towers
> 8,234 Charleville        4,700 Caloundra        3,550 Winton
> 1,337 I know Winton ... it is smaller than Longreach (both in
> population, about 3 times, and number of pubs).. yet Longreach is
> not tagged a city?
>
> _Conclusion_: there is a significant error in the relative ratings
> between places - even ones that are not that far apart! The situation
> with towns and villages is more numerous! The server objected to my
> bulk download ... so I'll do that in bits later ... unless there is no
> point - that is if there are strong objections here? Little point in
> doing the large bit of work if there will be no outcome. So below is a
> small attempt to clarify and simplify the situation in Australia. From
> the _OSM wiki_ I get the following use of occupied places By
> population.
> city>100,000>town>10,000>village>200>hamlet>100
> _ The present Australian use appears to be roughly _ By population.
> city>10,000>town>1,000>village>100>hamlet>10

>
> I think that is reasonable. The difference between the two is that
> Australia has a smaller than 'average' population density, so smaller
> places have more facilities due to the distance involved to get to the
> nearest larger place. For example - Australia is about the same size
> and mainland USA .. but 1/10 th the population.. so it stands to
> reason that the Australian population density would be about 1/10th ..
> so a 'town' would be about 1/10th too. Why judge on the population?
> Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical, Education ...
> they go hand in hand. Populations are usually stated - on the entry
> signs to towns, villages .. and collected by the ABS. So verifiable
> and accessible. Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts 

Re: [talk-au] place=? An oldie but no past conclusion.

[Christopher Barham]

> On 03 May 2016, at 14:22, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 

> 
> Why judge on the population? 
> Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical, Education ... they go 
> hand in hand. 
> Populations are usually stated - on the entry signs to towns, villages .. and 
> collected by the ABS. So verifiable and accessible.
> Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts quickly. 
> Usually the relationship between population centres remains fairly static .. 
> if one grows so do the surrounding ones. 
> Much easier to quickly asses and correctly tag this way. So it satisfies the 
> KISS principle.


City is not just a function of population - It’s can also be a political 
appointment/status? - e.g. Charters Towers and Redcliffe are cities : 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia 



C.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] place=? An oldie but no past conclusion.

[Warin]

Hi,

I came across Quobba Station and Canarvon where Canarvon is a 'village' 
and Quobba Station is a 'town'. I know Canarvon is larger than Quobba 
Station!


So I re-tagged Quobba Station as 'village'.

But I wondered on it.. so looked up the OSMwiki .. not much help... the 
Australian tagging guidelines ... errr not really.


I then considered getting all the Australian OSM data on places with the 
population data,


Got the cities data fine, but the towns data is too large a single bite 
and the server objected. Fine, I worked on the city data.


Some 90 are set as cities... I'll ignore those above 10,000 people and 
list the others here so you have an idea of those that maybe 
reclassified as


'towns' under my proposal. If a place is close to the 10,000 mark and 
there are no others around that location then I'd consider it a city, 
but other wise a town.


Charters Towers8,234

Charleville4,700

Caloundra3,550

Winton1,337

I know Winton ... it is smaller than Longreach (both in population, 
about 3 times, and number of pubs).. yet Longreach is not tagged a city?


_Conclusion_: there is a significant error in the relative ratings 
between places - even ones that are not that far apart!


The situation with towns and villages is more numerous!

The server objected to my bulk download ... so I'll do that in bits 
later ... unless there is no point - that is if there are strong 
objections here?


Little point in doing the large bit of work if there will be no outcome.

So below is a small attempt to clarify and simplify the situation in 
Australia.


From the _OSM wiki_ I get the following use of occupied places

By population.

city>100,000>town>10,000>village>200>hamlet>100

_The present Australian use appears to be roughly _

By population.

city>10,000>town>1,000>village>100>hamlet>10

I think that is reasonable.

The difference between the two is that Australia has a smaller than 
'average' population density,


so smaller places have more facilities due to the distance involved to 
get to the nearest larger place.


For example - Australia is about the same size and mainland USA .. but 
1/10 th the population..


so it stands to reason that the Australian population density would be 
about 1/10th .. so a 'town' would be about 1/10th too.


Why judge on the population?

Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical, Education ... 
they go hand in hand.


Populations are usually stated - on the entry signs to towns, villages 
.. and collected by the ABS. So verifiable and accessible.


Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts quickly.

Usually the relationship between population centres remains fairly 
static .. if one grows so do the surrounding ones.


Much easier to quickly asses and correctly tag this way. So it satisfies 
the KISS principle.


_Problems_... ?

 In large centres like Sydney and Melbourne some parts would be judged 
as 'cities' in their own right ...


not certain if that is a problem or not? Comments? I am more concerned 
with the country side, rather than the messy cities.


Are there any objections/comment/other ideas to the above ?

-

I have read the past posts on this ...

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2008-December/001079.html

but I could draw no reasonable conclusion.

There was a suggestion that the number of pubs be used ... which I think 
is quite Australian,


I use it to judge safety when parked .. less than 3 pubs = safe.. 
everyone knows everyone. More than 2 - cover and lock up.


By pubs

city>20>town>3>village>1>hamlet

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] place=? and oldie but a goodie.

[Frank]

Hi,

I came across Quobba Station and Canarvon where Canarvon is a 'village' 
and Quobba Station is a 'town'. I know Canarvon is larger than Quobba 
Station!


So I re-tagged Quobba Station as 'village'.

But I wondered on it.. so looked up the OSMwiki .. not much help... the 
Australian tagging guidelines ... errr not really.


I then considered getting all the Australian OSM data on places with the 
population data,


got the cities data fine, but the towns data is too large a single bite 
and the server objected. Fine, I worked on the city data.


Some 90 are set as cities... I'll ignore those above 10,000 people and 
list the others here so you have an idea of those that maybe 
reclassified as


'towns' under my proposal. If a place is close to the 10,000 mark and 
there are no others around that location then I'd consider it a city, 
but other wise a town.


Charters Towers8,234

Charleville4,700

Caloundra3,550

Winton1,337

I know Winton ... it is smaller than Longreach (both in population and 
number of pubs).. yet Longreach is not a city?


Clearly the relative sizes (and importance) of places is not being 
correctly tagged.


So to further explore the situation I downloaded the 'cities' of 
Australia with their populations from the OSM data base... extracted the 
data into a .csv file and looked at it... some 90 'cities' ...


errr Winton, Qld population ~1,300 is a city ... yet a little way down 
the road Longreach is not a city? I know both those places ... Longreach 
is bigger (population about 3 times... and yes it does have more pubs!).


Conclusion: there is a significant error in the relative ratings between 
places - even ones that are not that far apart!


The situation with towns and villages is more numerous!

The server objected to my bulk download ... so I'll do that in bits 
later ... unless there is no point - that is if there are strong 
objections here?


Little point in doing the large bit of work if there will be no outcome.

So below is a small attempt to clarify and simplify the situation in 
Australia.


From the OSM wiki I get the following use of occupied places

By population.

city>100,000>town>10,000>village>200>hamlet>100

humm looks like present Australian use is roughly

By population.

city>10,000>town>1,000>village>100>hamlet>10

I think that is reasonable.

The difference between the two is that Australia has a smaller than 
'average' population density,


so smaller places have more facilities due to the distance involved to 
get to the nearest larger place.


For example - Australia is about the same size and mainland USA .. but 
1/10 th the population..


so it stands to reason that the Australian population density would be 
about 1/10th .. so a 'town' would be about 1/10th too.


Why judge on the population?

Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical, Education ... 
they go hand in hand.


Populations are usually stated - on the entry signs to towns, villages 
.. and collected by the ABS. So verifiable and accessible.


Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts quickly.

Usually the relationship between population centres remains fairly 
static .. if one grows so do the surrounding ones.


Much easier to quickly asses and correctly tag this way. So it satisfies 
the KISS principle.


Problems...

 In large centres like Sydney and Melbourne some parts would be judged 
as 'cities' in their own right ...


not certain if that is a problem or not? Comments? I am more concerned 
with the country side, rather than the messy cities. :-)


Are there any objections/comment/other ideas to the above ?

-

I have read the past posts on this ...

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2008-December/001079.html

but I could draw no reasonable conclusion.

There was a suggestion that the number of pubs be used ... which I think 
is quite Australian,


I use it to judge safety when parked .. less than 3 pubs = safe.. 
everyone knows everyone.


By pubs

city>20>town>3>village>1>hamlet;-)

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place=?

[Jim Croft]

How about this?
http://www.gisca.adelaide.edu.au/web_aria/aria/aria.html
a remoteness index for Australia
http://www.gisca.adelaide.edu.au/products_services/ariav2_about.html

You could invent a 'townyness' metric based on the product of the
variables of the settlement's population and its remoteness...  :)

jim

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Sam Couter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Ian Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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.

 You're asking people to make a subjective judgement here. This will vary
 greatly and cause arguments that can't really be settled.

 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.

 Population count is reality, and it's objective and hard to argue with.

 A compromise may be to note the population in the shire/county rather
 than just within the town itself. This often reflects its importance in
 the region. And of course the renderer may become smart enough to
 consider smaller places more important when they're a long way from
 other places.
 --
 Sam Couter |  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

 iEYEARECAAYFAkk2Vf0ACgkQhTADrt6Jx1w1HACcDNZ5cNRramKYWy3em1AMgq0F
 MjYAnRWbUTSkxzsYO0YOmdzAdD2KZgYW
 =zBXc
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-

 ___
 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=?

[Liz]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Jim Croft wrote:
 How about this?
 http://www.gisca.adelaide.edu.au/web_aria/aria/aria.html
 a remoteness index for Australia
 http://www.gisca.adelaide.edu.au/products_services/ariav2_about.html

 You could invent a 'townyness' metric based on the product of the
 variables of the settlement's population and its remoteness...  :)

 jim

Sorry Jim but ARIA is about to be redone (again).


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place=?

[Liz]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Janet Hawtin wrote:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia

 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

A useful list indeed.
Is that Kim in disguise? or another entity called Janet?


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] place

[Neil Penman]

I don't have a problem with subjective and I think maybe we should use some of 
Liz's criteria.  One of the great things about OSM is that it doesn't just 
reflect what the government believes should be the situation as do the maps 
from PSMA.  I think there is merit in basing the significance of a place on 
subjective criteria which should be openly stated but may never be agreed to by 
100% of the mapping population.  For example one of these remote places with a 
population of 200 may be signposted from a distance of several hundred 
kilometers, have a clearly defined centre, a library, many shops even a bank as 
it may serve a much larger rural population.  I'd probably classify this as a 
town.  Whereas there are places with 200 people 20k or so outside of urban 
areas that are virtually impossible to spot.  I've been tagging these as 
hamlets even though there doesn't seem to be a centre at all, just two signs 
one at either end of a stretch of road with a few
 roofs poking through the trees.

Regards

Neil





From: Liz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, 3 December, 2008 9:11:31 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] place

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Sam Couter wrote:
 Population count is reality, and it's objective and hard to argue with.

Not exactly, its a moving target, and subject to collection errors.

I've had one of those quick looks with my usual search engine 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town#Australia
In Australia, the status of a town is formally applied in only a few states. 
Most states do define cities, and towns are commonly understood to be those 
centres of population not formally declared to be cities and usually with a 
population in excess of about 250 people.


http://www.dictionary.net/village
Village \Village\ (?; 48), n. [F., fr. L. villaticus belonging to a country 
house or villa. See Villa, and cf. Villatic.]

A small assemblage of houses in the country, less than a town or city.
Village cart, a kind of two-wheeled pleasure carriage without a top.
Syn: Village, Hamlet, Town, City.
Usage: In England, a hamlet denotes a collection of houses, too small to have 
a parish church. A village has a church, but no market. A town has both a 
market and a church or churches. A city is, in the legal sense, an 
incorporated borough town, which is, or has been, the place of a bishop's 
see. In the United States these distinctions do not hold.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070915103226AALZGhW
What is the difference between a village, town, and city?
The place I live considers itself a village. It's not under populated or that 
highly populated. There are about 35,000 people here. What determines if it 
is a town, village, or city?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Population for each actually varries depending on where you are. Here is some 
information that might help.

A hamlet is a small settlement, too small to be considered a village. The 
name comes from the diminutive of a Germanic word for an enclosed piece of 
land or pasture.


A village is a clustered human settlement or community, larger than a hamlet,

A town is a community of people ranging from a few hundred to several 
thousands, although it may be applied loosely even to huge metropolitan 
areas. Usually, a town is thought of as larger than a village but smaller 
than a city. The words city and village came into English from Latin 
via French. Town and borough (also burrow, burgh, bury, etc.) are 
of native Germanic origin, from Old English burg, a fortified settlement, and 
tūn, an enclosed piece of land

A city is an urban settlement with a particularly important status which 
differentiates it from a town.

City is primarily used to designate an urban settlement with a large 
population. However, city may also indicate a special administrative, legal, 
or historical status.

In the United States, city is primarily a legal term meaning an urban area 
with a degree of autonomy (i.e. a township), rather than meaning an entire 
large settlement (metropolitan area). Outside the United States, city 
implies an entire settlement or metropolitan area, although there are notable 
exceptions, e.g. the term City of London. In the UK, a city is a settlement 
with a charter (letters patent) from the crown.

http://www.npsp.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=1360
mentions Kent Town Village in the City of Norwood Payneham  St Peters

http://phorums.com.au/showthread.php?t=193110
wHAT THE?!??! The smallest city/town/village/hamlet in the 
world ?!?!?!?
discusses some of the very small towns and villages.



The problem exists because the Poms have one set of definitions and we don't 
have identical definitions in the remainder of (or the majority of) the 
English-speaking world.
The English definitions of 
place_with_no_church=hamlet
place_with_church_and_no_market=village
place_with_church_and_market=town

Re: [talk-au] place=?

[Kim Hawtin]

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