It is obviously documented on wikipedia, but also one of those basic bits of general knowledge you pick up over the years, was probably taught it at school. It is always in the news at the time of jubilees that new cities are created.
Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 25/02/2014 10:13 Andy Allan wrote: On 25 February 2014 09:47, Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> wrote: > City status is an honour granted by The Queen, not something that can be > claimed by size or population. Like trunk roads, its quirky and like trunk > roads I see it as the way we do things here. Is that actually documented anywhere though? I'm playing devils advocate here, since I've been annoyed in the past to see Croydon tagged as a city when in my mind it's just a suburb of London. But remember that it's up to us to choose what place=city means in the context of OSM. For example, we've rounded on our American colleages for tagging all of their thousands of village-sized "Incorporated cities" as place=city, and now they've changed them to villages and kept place=city for, well, 'actual cities'. But then we go around saying that towns like Ely and St Asaph are place=city, which smacks of dual standards at best and probably even unhelpful tagging. Do consumers of OSM data find it helpful that St Asaph is in the list of place=city objects? If anything, I'd like to amend the UK use of place=city to come up with a use of the tag that fits in with global OSM usage. We can add a tag for 'ceremonial status' or similar to indicate they are a 'city' according to the weird UK rules but aren't actually cities in the main meaning of the word. So long as it's all agreed and documented, I'd be in favour of a change. Cheers, Andy
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb