Re: [talk-au] place by remoteness

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

Re: [talk-au] place by remoteness

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

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

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

Re: [talk-au] place= rendering

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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 107, Issue 4

f_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'. > > > &

[talk-au] osmaustralia.org website and Garmin .img files - current status ?

Does anyone know what's happening with the osmaustralia.org website, and the regular updates of Garmin .img files ? They used to be updated roughly weekly, but haven't been updated since February. (I use these files to update my Garmin GPS with the results of my (and everyone else's) OSM