On 14/09/15 11:11, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Broxbourne, Wormley and Turnford don't really have significant centres
> and historically would likely have been considered villages. Broxbourne
> is now a town in wikipedia with a population of over 13 thousand while
> the other two are still listed as
On 14/09/15 11:24, Lester Caine wrote:
On 14/09/15 11:11, Tom Hughes wrote:
Broxbourne, Wormley and Turnford don't really have significant centres
and historically would likely have been considered villages. Broxbourne
is now a town in wikipedia with a population of over 13 thousand while
the
Not strictly speaking true: I can instantly think of a counter example
Market Harborough which is clearly a town with a charter from the 13th
century, but ecclesiastically established as a chapel-at-ease to Great
Bowden (see Hosking (1955), *The Making of the English Landscape*, p.
227-228).
On 14/09/15 13:02, SK53 wrote:
> On the other hand finding a way to access population figures to places
> for data consumers is useful. Directly adding population values may work
> in Britain where population change is relatively slow, so slowly
> outdated data is still useful, but is risky in
Richard Symonds wrote:
> Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based
> on definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population
> size.
That's what the population= tag is for. :)
Richard
--
View this message in context:
I see your problem... could you tell me how exactly you define the
hierarchy at the moment? Is it ad-hoc, with various rules in different
areas etc?
Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on
definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population size. If
this
On 14/09/15 15:18, Richard Symonds wrote:
> Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on
> definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population size.
> If this gives odd results, then perhaps you could have a "booster value"
> if the town is used as a post town
Hi Lester, can you provide a link to the ONS data you are referring to?
On 2015-09-14 16:39, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 14/09/15 15:18, Richard Symonds wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on
>> definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure
Is there any reason that a place can't be both?
eg.
"defines self as=town"
"defines self as=village"
"defined by X as village"
Or the like?
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827.
Well, the beauty is that you could use just those definitions instead:
"defined by PC as village"
"defined by census as town"
"defined by Local Government Act as parish"
etc etc. Wikidata is very good at keeping track of these, and then the
reader can simply select whose definition they want to
On 14/09/15 15:18, Richard Symonds wrote:
I see your problem... could you tell me how exactly you define the
hierarchy at the moment? Is it ad-hoc, with various rules in different
areas etc?
Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on
definitions, instead having a
No reason whatsoever but how do you determine what a place calls
itself? What the Parish Council puts on the "village" sign -> according
to the PC. What the population maps to according to some algorithm ->
according to the author of the algorithm.
On 2015-09-14 15:23, Richard Symonds
On 14/09/15 14:23, Richard Symonds wrote:
> Is there any reason that a place can't be both?
> eg.
> "defines self as=town"
> "defines self as=village"
> "defined by X as village"
>
> Or the like?
The obvious answer is that unless one adds some sort of filter it will
get counted twice? Once as a
On 14/09/15 15:47, Colin Smale wrote:
> Hi Lester, can you provide a link to the ONS data you are referring to?
Main index
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/index.html
Useful one for now ...
On 14/09/2015 00:41, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 14/09/15 00:16, Lester Caine wrote:
The OSM wiki defines 'hamlet' as less than 100-200 people, but village
supposedly starts at 1000 up to 1 with the proviso that it depends
on the country. Ideally the two would perhaps meet :) We are perhaps
On 14/09/15 08:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
Historically, the distinction between a hamlet, a village and a town was
based on ecclesiastical parishes. A village was a populated area
comprising a parish of its own, with one parish church. A town was a
contiguous populated area comprising multiple
On 14/09/15 08:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Historically, the distinction between a hamlet, a village and a town was
> based on ecclesiastical parishes. A village was a populated area
> comprising a parish of its own, with one parish church. A town was a
> contiguous populated area comprising multiple
On 14/09/15 09:51, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> To go back to the example of the town where I grew up, namely
> Wotton-under-Edge in Gloucestershire. That is a single parish and has a
> current population of 5627 according to wikipedia, which also points out
> that it had a municipal corporation until
Some civil parishes are even cities (I am thinking of Salisbury for
example). And some cities don't have a council of their own (e.g. Bath).
So it is all dependent on how you look at it. Current population,
historical status, government/democratic decisions...
On 2015-09-14 09:53, Mark
On 14/09/15 10:39, Lester Caine wrote:
On 14/09/15 09:51, Tom Hughes wrote:
Hell, try http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/1009 where I now live
which wasn't even a parish in it's own right until 1844 but was almost
certainly considered a town before that, as a coaching stop on the main
On 14/09/15 00:16, Lester Caine wrote:
The OSM wiki defines 'hamlet' as less than 100-200 people, but village
supposedly starts at 1000 up to 1 with the proviso that it depends
on the country. Ideally the two would perhaps meet :) We are perhaps
looking at a population of around 8000 for a
On 14/09/15 00:41, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 14/09/15 00:16, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> The OSM wiki defines 'hamlet' as less than 100-200 people, but village
>> supposedly starts at 1000 up to 1 with the proviso that it depends
>> on the country. Ideally the two would perhaps meet :) We are
I'm currently working around the area trying to get all the local places
cross referenced properly. I've got The 2012 Index of Places from the
ONS which has a supposedly complete set of places, but I've been hitting
a number of problems which I think I've finally sussed.
The OSM wiki defines
23 matches
Mail list logo
