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
