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 or a seat of local government (for > example).
Not going to happen. Wish list! On OSM some places have all their is_in: tags for parish, ward, county. Some rely on having enclosing boundaries to provide that information, and some have nothing where many of the boundaries are still missing. For the UK we have the whole hierarchy from the ONS data so there is no need to create it, we simply need an agreed method to use it. We could create all the is_in: tags from the data so we can search and find all of x in y, or we could pass that off to a third party such as wikidata where we just add a link to the whole gamut of what can be added virtual data wise. Currently all the wikipedia links are being added but I think that to use wikidata efficiently one has to use the designated ID rather than the name? Since Facebook insist on using the names as defined by wikipedia this is where my problem originally arose since they only add county when wikipedia do so often you have no idea which is the right place to use. What is used as a link has other consequences! It does still not get around needing the boundaries IN OSM so one can click anywhere in an area and identify which of multiple zones it is actually in. Adding this data to the places does not fill that hole :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
