On 5/05/2016 10:35 AM, Ben Kelley wrote:
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.
Then I think that is a separate issue to tagging.
I have modified the subject to reflect the divergence of subject.
Rendering where a large area is blank (or at least not 'full') I think
the render can go to the next layer and render that .. repeat until
there is enough to display.
This would fill the map with data - making the map more usefull.
- Ben.
--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com <mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com>
Sent from my Windows XP PC
On 5 May 2016 10:26, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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 1 person could be
defined as a city? NO, certain things are expected in a city ..
certainly more than 1 person!
So there are limits as to how far to go in this direction.
Would need to revert to
city>100,000>town>10,000>village>200>hamlet>100
for 'Major cities' and 'Inner regional' areas -
as judged by the 'remoteness' thing as I can see no reason not to
use the world wide population points here as the population
densities are similar?
These areas are in close proximity and would be similar around the
world so the chosen population points should be suitable.
The 'Outer Regional' areas ... about half the population density so
city>50,000>town>5,000>village>100>hamlet>50
The 'Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
city>25,000>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
The 'Very Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
city>12,500>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
Err Winton would be come a village .. Longreach becomes a town...
would that be acceptable?
I think that works for my perception of those places.
It will add to the complexity but be justifiable technically. Is
it worth the added complexity?
On 4/05/2016 6:28 PM, Alex Sims wrote:
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
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 4/05/2016 12:50 AM, Christopher Barham wrote:
On 03 May 2016, at 14:22, Warin <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
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 <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
