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 < >>> <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>61sundow...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >> <SNIP> >>> >>> 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. >> </SNIP> >> >> 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 >> <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
