Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits
I am not a fan of reverting in general. Sure there are some mistakes here but surely not even the most steadfast old timers here think that *all* of these changes are wrong. Maybe *shrug* it is 50/50 here right/wrong. And I disagree with the *only* way to deal with is to revert. You could simply do no revert and change them individually. Not "There is a mistake in the changeset on my patch therefore it should all be reverted"...imagine the carnage if I started revert entire changesets where I found the tiniest of errors/typos. Reverting and some of the over zealous initial comments here just sound like "this is my patch! how dare you change it I am perfect I have been doing this for years!!1!!one!!" and "in our area we do this! we/I will change it if it needs too not you!!" I think it is better and more welcoming to new users to not revert and if the wiki is "wrong" to have clearer guidelines if required in our wiki. That, like it or not, is what user do look at, especially new users. I would argue that we need a more general UK guide to this rather than the "in my patch we do it this way/ our wiki is just a guide" approach. Again imagine if I started a whole new tagging scheme for highway= for my local patch. To argue "well it is my local patch I can do what I want" just wouldn't wash but that seems to be what we are doing here with the city/suburb situation we have different areas of the country will have different rules. Going forward I think wikipedia provides a reasonably good guide if they are area or a distinct town, villages, etc. I urge all involved (and obviously not just anyone can change these only an elite few) to look at all of these. I know some here, somewhat ironically, don't like crowd sourced information like wiki(pedia) but many find it the most useful and it is a public consensus nearly all of the time. It is what I use for reference for tagging villages, etc up and down the country. If wikipedia is wrong you know what you can do (change it! not f*** off). So Hayes, Hillingdon = town Wimbledon, London = suburb, not a town Sutton Coldfield, Brum= "town that forms a suburb" I would go with town. Jewellery Quarter, Brum = not a village so suburb or suitable subset of. etc The wikipedia approach is something that many people can understand and is "quotable" and a "reference point". Reference points are useful for situations like this. I would be curious for any major objections for this approach. I would be very interested to so were any of those differ to what we "should" do and I think individually each case would warrant further debate. I think this would be better then a, IMHO, horrible one man band "use place=town for places with a sizeable retail centre" random rule, etc. I am not sure the "on the ground" rule applies here as much as you think. I know it is banged on about as some sort of self preservation for some. But remember we do not always do this despite what some may claim. For example, all admin boundaries do not have the entire boundary line visable" on the ground". A sign saying "--> town centre" isn't often good enough if more "official" sources say that it is not. John -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Suburbs-in-London-Brum-big-edits-tp5824820p5825023.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits
I don’t think it's as simple as that Matthijs. Its fine as an idea as a starter for 10 but we should be looking deeper and what's on the ground before making any decisions. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Matthijs Melissen [mailto:i...@matthijsmelissen.nl] Sent: 20 November 2014 19:30 To: Andy Robinson Cc: Richard Mann; Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits On 20 November 2014 08:51, Andy Robinson wrote: > It’s not likely to be as simple as saying everywhere within a city > boundary is a suburb. A simple example is the town of Sutton Coldfield > which recently regained it Royal Town status, Its officially a town in > every traditional sense yet it is part of Birmingham though devolution > of powers back to the town from Birmingham is slowly (very slowly) > happening with time. There is no gap in the conurbation between what > is known as Sutton Coldfield and the rest of Birmingham. It’s not > considered a suburb of Birmingham as it’s a town destination in its > own right and locals who hail from it would always say they were from the > town and not the city of Birmingham. Why don't we follow post towns? In the Birmingham area, that would give us cities/town/villages Birmingham, Alcester, Bromsgrove, Halesowen, Cradley Heath, Rowley Regis, Smethwick, Oldbury, West Bromwich, Sutton Coldfield, Tamworth, Studyley, Solihull, Henley-in-Arden, and Redditch. Places like Moseley, Kings Heath, and Bournbrook would become suburbs, which is quite reasonable in my opinion - these places are clearly part of the settlement Birmingham. In most other countries, deciding between village and suburb is a bit easier because villages have their own town sign (usually functioning as built-up area sign as well), while suburbs have no such sign. Post towns in such countries, at least in the Netherlands, are usually equivalent to signed towns. -- Matthijs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
