>> Bath has not lost it's city status, unlike Rochester, so the designation >> is correct. > Absolutely, I was questioning the "arbitrary population limit", not the > city status. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I was just indicating that while the population is less than 100k, it's status as a city is still secure ;) In the UK the city designation is well defined, so the use of an "arbitrary population limit" in the wiki does not apply. > In England "places" themselves don't have well-defined boundaries - only > admin areas, down to the level of parish/electoral wards (of which the > population is known, more-or-less). Unless the NLPG can help? But I > suspect they are more oriented towards postal addresses, which is a > whole different can of worms. NLPG is purely 'land' parcels and has no concept of the number of people resident. The boundaries that are available via NLPG would help define areas, but the last extracts I have still lack that detail as well. In theory over time the legal boundary information should be added in parallel with the land registry, but currently even OSM may be more accurate than official channels :) The ONS statistics are the official reference to population, but even here just what is listed makes difficult reading. Some 'village' populations cover the entire parish or ward while others may be split between different parts of the same location. Again, no consistent information that we can use :( -- 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
