How is that similar circumstances? The current council (Medway Council) hasn't tried to get Rochester's city status back.
--colin On 2016-02-15 16:32, paul.bivand wrote: > Bath is still a city with Charter Trustees. > > In similar circumstances Rochester lost its city status on local authority > merger because they didn't appoint charter trustees. > > The city status would have applied to the former boundary. The successor > council has failed repeatedly at getting city status. > > Not that this bothers the centre for cities which counts lots of places as > cities that legally aren't. > > Paul > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> > Date: 15/02/2016 14:15 (GMT+00:00) > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city > > On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote: > >> So Bath is also a >> city despite being below some arbitrary population limit. > > Bath has around 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't have > a city council, only Charter Trustees. > >> If we know the >> population then it should be recorded, or a link to some other database >> that can provide a current and possibly historic population record? > > There is a well-established key population=* : > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:population > > Populations change every day of course, so they are never entirely accurate. > But the wiki describes also population:date and source:population which are > important to put the number in the right context, as is putting the tag on > the right geometrical object which really should be a polygon (so either > admin boundaries or landuse or place) and not a node. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
