2010/5/21 Pieren <pier...@gmail.com>: > No reasons to stop this mess where in the past the place hierarchy was quite > clear: > city > town > village > hamlet > locality
this is actually not clear, because locality was long ago (or has ever been) defined as uninhabited place, regardless the size of the feature (so it falls in the category island and other non-settlement-place-tags). > and suburb as part of a city or town that's the second part being not clear. If suburb (horrible word for central places) is part of city or town, why not having also parts of hamlets tagged explicity if they have their own name? Another "problem" with suburb I see is that there is no distinction for "official" (read administrative) places from ones that are only subparts of administrative entities but with their own name. I would like to be able, given the hypothetical situation that all data is entered completely and correctly, to e.g. calculate the population of Germany by summarizing all population-values of certain place-tags (isolated_dwelling, hamlet, village, town, city) and disregarding the rest (like suburb), which should already be included in the ones mentioned above. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
