On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Gustav Foseid <gust...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Karl Newman <siliconfi...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Sure it is. If a lot of people want to live in a place, in general that >> should make it more notable. Besides, I was only suggesting using population >> as a tiebreaker for equal "place" key values. It's not the final answer, but >> it's objective and it goes a long way toward fixing the problem. I don't >> like your _major and _minor suffixes because they imply different >> population, which is not how you described it. > > > How do you suggest we find population for places? > > I can tell that a town is a regional center, without having to know it's > population. Maybe major/minor is not the best names, however. > > How many values should we have for populated places? We have 4 now > (hamlet/village/town/city). Should we add more? Reduce to fewer? Maybe just > one? > > - Gustav > > Well, in the US, the population for cities is posted on the city limit signs. Or widely available in the internet, etc. Understand that this wouldn't be necessary for most places. If the population tag is missing, then we just get the behavior we have now, which isn't terrible but could be improved. I would argue for more granularity in place values. It's dominated on the low end of population (everything over 100k population is a "city"). And to me, there's plenty of room to subdivide "town", too--there's a big difference in a place with 10,000 people vs. 99,999 people. Karl
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
