I like Toby Murray's solution, as I've seen it before, it makes sense
and it works well with Nominatim.
Note that if you delete the node, the city name will no longer be
rendered on <http://osm.org>osm.org or Mapquest Open. Not sure about
other renderings but I'm guessing a lot of them do the same thing.
Another way of fixing the nominatim problem is to create a boundary
relation for the city. Move the tags from the way to the relation
and then add the node to the relation with a role of "label" as this
will cause nominatim to merge the two into a single entity while
still rendering the name on the map.
In California, I use the following to guide my use of the place= tag.
This is QUITE rough, but serves well:
city=50,000 or greater population
town=10,000 to 50,000 population, especially if it is an incorporated
city, but not very populous
village=1000 to 10,000 population, especially if there is a commercial zone
hamlet=dozens to hundreds of people, or even a bit more, especially
if there is NO commercial zone
isolated_dwelling=just that: maybe a single family (or two or
three), usually in a remote area
locality=0 population, as it is simply a place designation, not a
place where people live.
I sometimes fuzz the village boundary a bit: a hamlet that has a
(very) small business/commercial zone can rightly be called a
village, even if it is only hundreds of people. A hamlet's
crossroads fuel station with a convenience market, an ATM, a public
phone and a postal box might be just enough to tip hamlet into
village.
I reserve the tag suburb= as a true subdivision level 1 tag (under
city or town) only with values of names that are "districts" of a
larger city. These can be very well defined or rather vague. I
reserve the tag neighbourhood= as a true subdivision level 2 tag
(under city or town). The subdivision levels are well explained in a
table in OSM's Place wiki.
While not straying too far in the direction of "coding for the
renderer," I have noticed that these selections do render in mapnik
(at virtually all zoom levels properly) as "rather pleasing," at
least for areas I have designated with these tags and that I know.
As long as we are on the topic, I do think there is something to be
said for place= values like:
large_city=50,000 to 1,000,000 population
mega_city=1,000,000 to 10,000,000 population
super_city=10,000,000 and greater population
Again, these are rough, but they would promote better rendering of
super and mega cities (only) at low zoom levels. And because there
are a relatively small number of super and mega cities, it wouldn't
take that long to "promote" their tags from the existing city value.
These tags would work worldwide, and are a relatively simple change
to most renderers. Sure, we can keep existing population values
(where they have been entered), but they haven't in a lot of places,
and this seems a simpler method.
SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
