Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Light bulb moment!

I could always ask my brother, who works at ABS! :-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 09:37, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 1/10/23 10:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >
> > I'm reading that as ATSI communities of any size are counted?
>
> Yes. The UCL is urban centres and localities. They get listed as a
> locality if they are not urban.
>
> I think the ABS does this because it is important for reporting on
> statistics to do with first peoples.
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 09:10, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

>
> This is what the ABS does.
>

Interesting, even if somewhat deep!

I noticed though:

" Discrete Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and discrete
tourist resorts with a population exceeding 1,000 are considered to be
Urban Centres regardless of density."

I'm reading that as ATSI communities of any size are counted?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Andrew Davidson]

On 28/9/23 20:31, Michael Collinson wrote:

Perhaps this apocryphal Ireland solution should be used? :-)

A house - building

A house and a church - hamlet

A house, a church and a pub - village

A house, a church and two pubs - town


I think your criteria may to strict :-)

I've been looking at SA because I was curious as to why there were so 
many "towns". Turns out that the threshold is very low:


https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1BeG

In fact there were two "towns" in SA that had a population of *zero* at 
the last census.





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Andrew Davidson]

On 29/9/23 08:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I was looking at 
https://profile.id.com.au/scenic-rim/population?WebID=160 
, but 


I can't figure out what ABS geographic unit that lines up with. Maybe 
it's their own?


https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/SAL32394 
 says 320 ? I guess that's "town" vs area?


That quite common in rural areas. I've encountered cases where the 
bounded locality had a population in the vicinity of 500 but the 
settlement population was less than 100.


Just reading the wiki on it, & it mentioned showgrounds & Post Office. 
What do the presence of them do to the "relative importance" scale?


I'm not sure. I was wondering if people were imagining some sort of 
scoring system. One point for each person that lives there, then plus or 
minus some value for each type of urban infrastructure that it has or 
doesn't have.


I've been doing a bit of searching to see if I can find something that's 
already been designed, but haven't been successful yet. So far I've found:


https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs-edition-3/jul2021-jun2026/significant-urban-areas-urban-centres-and-localities-section-state/urban-centres-and-localities

This is what the ABS does.

https://www.health.gov.au/topics/rural-health-workforce/classifications/mmm#about-the-modified-monash-model

This is what Monash Uni has developed. It gets used to work out how 
rural somewhere is for the purposes of health based employment.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119020300838#bib0005

Now we're in deep dive territory. This is about what the UN has 
developed for their use.


https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ucdb2018visual.php#

Less useful, but interesting to look at. It's a dataset of urban areas 
made by remote sensing.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Warin]

On 28/9/23 20:31, Michael Collinson wrote:

On 28/09/2023 11:18, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 28/9/23 08:21, cleary wrote:

Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in 
OSM but neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a 
hotel, small primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a 
coffee in either place last time I visited. 


That is the general problem, most people want to inflate the 
importance of a place so that it renders. Windorah has a population 
of 76 and Ivanhoe 202. If it's lucky Ivanhoe might rate a village but 
Windorah is most firmly in the hamlet class.



Perhaps this apocryphal Ireland solution should be used? :-)

A house - building

A house and a church - hamlet

A house, a church and a pub - village

A house, a church and two pubs - town




In olden times Australia rated places by the number of pubs. I still do, 
3 or less pubs and I am comfortable security wise. More than 3 pubs and 
I take care to lock stuff up. Most communities will try to hold on to 
their last pub, once it is gone the community tends to die off too.


I did meet some English 4WD world travelers that had a world map. In the 
north west corner of Australia was Carnegie on that map .. it is a 
cattle station, has fuel and might do some food if you ask. It is a fair 
way to the next places with fuel. It was on their map so they went. Such 
is the power of 'filling in the blank spaces'.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Good conversation, thanks, everyone!

On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 20:04, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

>
> Err downtown Rathdowney has a population of 161.I might be OK with
> village, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it a town.
>

I was looking at https://profile.id.com.au/scenic-rim/population?WebID=160,
but https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/SAL32394
says 320 ? I guess that's "town" vs area?

Just reading the wiki on it, & it mentioned showgrounds & Post Office. What
do the presence of them do to the "relative importance" scale?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Michael Collinson]

On 28/09/2023 11:18, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 28/9/23 08:21, cleary wrote:

Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in 
OSM but neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a 
hotel, small primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a 
coffee in either place last time I visited. 


That is the general problem, most people want to inflate the 
importance of a place so that it renders. Windorah has a population of 
76 and Ivanhoe 202. If it's lucky Ivanhoe might rate a village but 
Windorah is most firmly in the hamlet class.



Perhaps this apocryphal Ireland solution should be used? :-)

A house - building

A house and a church - hamlet

A house, a church and a pub - village

A house, a church and two pubs - town


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Michael Collinson]

On 28/09/2023 10:19, Warin wrote:


On 28/9/23 17:04, Michael Collinson wrote:


TL;DR: We need to get a systematic measure of population density into 
OSM to act as a guideline for mapping software to vary what goes at 
what zoom level.



Off topic:

On a global scale that does not work due to the population densities 
changing over the world. When adjusted for Europe to have a 'good map' 
then using the same software rules the map goes blank in various 
places like central Australia.


Yes, agreed, it has to be regional/local. That is thrust of the essay, 
so I'd reword the summary as:


TL;DR: We need to get systematic measures of regional/local population 
density into OSM to act as a guideline for mapping software to vary what 
goes at what zoom level.


That can be done in the existing db by attaching a tag to admin boundary 
relations. The drawback is that it needs to be done at at least a 
sub-state level to accommodate, say, Western Australia minus Perth 
economic envelope. I personally feel the long-term solution is to be 
able to define more arbitrary polygons as they can be used for many 
other metadata use cases.




My thinking is the map generating software should fill the map at a 
zoom with data until the map density reaches a certain level and then 
stop. This way the map would not be blank nor over crowed, but what is 
displayed adjusts to suit the data available. There could be limits on 
what detail could be displayed in both directions - minimum data and 
maximum data but what it uses is simply between the two limits and 
adjusted for data/map density ... Of course there is a lot more to 
this .. like the tiles being sized to suit the data density rather 
than an arbitrary lat/long size.
Yes, another good idea. Potentially practical at "big iron" level, such 
as commercial server solutions like Mapbox or the OSM server itself 
where you have processing power and memory.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Andrew Davidson]

On 28/9/23 17:04, Michael Collinson wrote:
So, I think some sort agreed national level hierarchy of populated place 
is important in order to jive with cultural, legal, cultural and broad 
population density criteria. But to vary it locally or regionally is 
dangerous and I agree with cleary (if I am reading the quote levels right).


I'm in agreement. The current tagging guidelines are already too vague. 
I don't want to add on the idea that you can vary it across Australia, 
this will just encourage more place inflation.


I'd rather tighten up the definitions, so they are more verifiable.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Andrew Davidson]

On 28/9/23 09:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Against what you said, Rathdowney in SEQ, with ~1800 people, 


Err downtown Rathdowney has a population of 161.I might be OK with 
village, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it a town.


But Maroon, 20k the other way, with only a primary school & a RFS 
station, would only be a village.


Looking at the aerial imagery I'm not sure this would even count a a 
settlement. There is no clustering of dwellings, it's just farms strung 
out along a road with a school.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Andrew Davidson]

On 28/9/23 08:21, cleary wrote:

Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in OSM but neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a hotel, small primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a coffee in either place last time I visited. 


That is the general problem, most people want to inflate the importance 
of a place so that it renders. Windorah has a population of 76 and 
Ivanhoe 202. If it's lucky Ivanhoe might rate a village but Windorah is 
most firmly in the hamlet class.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Andrew Davidson]

On 27/9/23 16:29, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Aren't most places classified by the government authority as 
cities/villages/towns/localities/suburbs?


Not in a way that is useful for using in OSM.They tend to be classified 
under the state's local government act, which is an administrative 
arrangement not an indication of where they would fall in the OSM 
tagging system.





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Warin]

On 28/9/23 17:04, Michael Collinson wrote:


TL;DR: We need to get a systematic measure of population density into 
OSM to act as a guideline for mapping software to vary what goes at 
what zoom level.



Off topic:

On a global scale that does not work due to the population densities 
changing over the world. When adjusted for Europe to have a 'good map' 
then using the same software rules the map goes blank in various places 
like central Australia.


My thinking is the map generating software should fill the map at a zoom 
with data until the map density reaches a certain level and then stop. 
This way the map would not be blank nor over crowed, but what is 
displayed adjusts to suit the data available. There could be limits on 
what detail could be displayed in both directions - minimum data and 
maximum data but what it uses is simply between the two limits and 
adjusted for data/map density ... Of course there is a lot more to this 
.. like the tiles being sized to suit the data density rather than an 
arbitrary lat/long size.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Michael Collinson]

TL;DR: We need to get a systematic measure of population density into 
OSM to act as a guideline for mapping software to vary what goes at what 
zoom level. This can be done either by adding the appropriately 
calculated/derived density measure to admin boundary relations or, more 
radically, as part of a separate Metabase where more arbitrary polygons 
are allowed.


And now a bit of an essay:

For me, population size is the only meaningful indicator of relative 
importance as it is quantitative albeit fuzzy (to me it doesn't really 
matter whether it is for an admin area, urban envelope, metropolitan 
area, whatever - if anything more rigorous is desired, use specialist 
tagging).


But the rub is the word "relative". Relative to what? When I mapped 
Dalby, Queensland in 2006/2007 the ABS population was below 10,000 which 
in the then Brit-centric guidelines made it a village, which is 
ridiculous given the importance of the town within the area.


So, I think some sort agreed national level hierarchy of populated place 
is important in order to jive with cultural, legal, cultural and broad 
population density criteria. But to vary it locally or regionally is 
dangerous and I agree with cleary (if I am reading the quote levels right).


Graeme then says:

> ... but it would be good to do something that fixes the vast empty 
when you cross the Great Dividing Range.


Yes. I think this is a map presentation issue not a map data issue.  I 
have a series of Android hobby apps published for specific areas and the 
way I resolved it was to simply have a "low zoom" flag in some of them 
which tells the map style sheet to show farms, hamlets and villages at 
much lower zoom levels and with greater prominence at higher levels. 
place=locality can also be a good one to pick out as can landuse or even 
buildings. For Australia, specifically, my tip would be to 
systematically tag main farm building(s) as place=farm or derive it from 
named landuse=farmyard.


But that raises another question. Is there a generic way to generate a 
"low zoom" flag? There are at least two possible solutions.


The first is to use the existing OSM data structure. Calculate or derive 
(ABS??) population density for administrative areas and put it on 
boundary relations, national, state and "local". It is then up to the 
mapping software to see what is available and make zoom-level detailing 
decision based on it. This is doable but makes things hard for the small 
mapmaker like me to implement.


More democratic is to use a notion proposed by Sarah Houseman for 
geocoding and I believe has much wider implication and is an important 
step forward for OSM. I floated this at 2020 or 2021 SOTM.  This is to 
have a separate "metadata" database of polygons with, following OSM 
practice, whatever you like attached to them.


The point of the polygons is that you can attach rules and hints to 
them. They can follow legal jurisdiction boundaries or can be more 
general. As an example "All of Western Australia except the Perth 
metropolitan envelope".  Or, outside this discussion, "the area where 
 is the main spoken language". Here are the three main areas that I 
propose. (3) is relevant to this discussion.


(1) Rules. In the NSW polygon, bicycle=no where footpath=sidewalk except 
for children under 16. In the Australia polygon, driving is to the left.


(2) Default hints.  In the YYY polygon, surface=unpaved/paved where 
highway=primary and surface tag not defined.


(3) Hints. Population density. Main spoken language(s). How addresses 
are structured.  ... and anything else that could be useful for mapping, 
searching or routing in this area.


[Having such an open data, systematically structured database removes a 
danger that map making moves back into the realm of companies with deep 
pockets because only they have the resources to 1) collate the data, 2) 
be able utilise it on the fly when presenting maps, routing, searching 
based on OSM data.]


Mike



On 28/09/2023 04:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 11:25, cleary  wrote:

All valid arguments, thanks.

If everything is exaggerated so that villages are described as
towns and towns as cities etc., then I think it just devalues the
whole database on which the map is based.


I certainly see where you're coming from, but it would be good to do 
something that fixes the vast empty when you cross the Great Dividing 
Range: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/-27.163/145.569


I'll be interested to read comments from other mappers.


So would I, but so far there's apparently not too many interested in it?

Thanks

Graeme






On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, at 9:08 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> Yes, it probably shouldn't be a one size fits all equation.
>
> Against what you said, Rathdowney in SEQ, with ~1800 people,
only has a
> cafe / takeaway / store with a few grocery items, pub, currently
closed

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 11:25, cleary  wrote:

All valid arguments, thanks.


> If everything is exaggerated so that villages are described as towns and
> towns as cities etc., then I think it just devalues the whole database on
> which the map is based.
>

I certainly see where you're coming from, but it would be good to do
something that fixes the vast empty when you cross the Great Dividing
Range: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/-27.163/145.569

I'll be interested to read comments from other mappers.
>

So would I, but so far there's apparently not too many interested in it?

Thanks

Graeme



>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, at 9:08 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Yes, it probably shouldn't be a one size fits all equation.
> >
> > Against what you said, Rathdowney in SEQ, with ~1800 people, only has a
> > cafe / takeaway / store with a few grocery items, pub, currently closed
> > servo, all of police, RFS & (honourary) ambo, primary school, church/s
> > but it's a very popular day-trip tourist stop, so I would definitely
> > count it as a town.
> >
> > Most people travel 30k up the road to Beaudesert for a full range of
> > services, so that should possibly become a city?
> >
> > But Maroon, 20k the other way, with only a primary school & a RFS
> > station, would only be a village.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 08:26, cleary  wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree that population is not necessarily the only factor but, in
> practice, population correlates closely with the services and facilities
> available in a location which is effectively the "relative importance",
> isn't it?
> >>
> >> I presume you are considering putting bigger dots and bigger writing on
> the map  for small settlements in isolated areas. Map renderers can do that
> for themselves if they wish. It is more important for OSM to show
> on-the-ground truth.  If a small settlement has few services,  then showing
> it as a town is misleading.
> >>
> >> Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in OSM
> but neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a hotel,
> small primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a coffee in either
> place last time I visited. I don't think either place had even a small
> supermarket or convenience store. Unlikely to find a doctor.  Probably
> wouldn't find a car mechanic, couldn't buy a new tyre if you needed one.
> The locals all travel a couple of hundred kilometres for shopping, health
> care etc.  I find it very misleading to label these places as towns, just
> because they are the largest settlements in their respective vicinities.
> The towns are the places where people go to get the goods and services they
> need.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023, at 2:18 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >> > Have just raised this for discussion on both the Forum & Discord, so
> >> > also throwing it out here.
> >> >
> >> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_towns_by_relative_importance%2C_not_just_population_size
> >> >
> >> > Any thoughts or comments welcome, in any place!
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> >
> >> > Graeme
> >> > ___
> >> > Talk-au mailing list
> >> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-au mailing list
> >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks!

Yes, it probably shouldn't be a one size fits all equation.

Against what you said, Rathdowney in SEQ, with ~1800 people, only has a
cafe / takeaway / store with a few grocery items, pub, currently closed
servo, all of police, RFS & (honourary) ambo, primary school, church/s but
it's a very popular day-trip tourist stop, so I would definitely count it
as a town.

Most people travel 30k up the road to Beaudesert for a full range of
services, so that should possibly become a city?

But Maroon, 20k the other way, with only a primary school & a RFS station,
would only be a village.

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 08:26, cleary  wrote:

>
> I agree that population is not necessarily the only factor but, in
> practice, population correlates closely with the services and facilities
> available in a location which is effectively the "relative importance",
> isn't it?
>
> I presume you are considering putting bigger dots and bigger writing on
> the map  for small settlements in isolated areas. Map renderers can do that
> for themselves if they wish. It is more important for OSM to show
> on-the-ground truth.  If a small settlement has few services,  then showing
> it as a town is misleading.
>
> Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in OSM but
> neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a hotel, small
> primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a coffee in either place
> last time I visited. I don't think either place had even a small
> supermarket or convenience store. Unlikely to find a doctor.  Probably
> wouldn't find a car mechanic, couldn't buy a new tyre if you needed one.
> The locals all travel a couple of hundred kilometres for shopping, health
> care etc.  I find it very misleading to label these places as towns, just
> because they are the largest settlements in their respective vicinities.
> The towns are the places where people go to get the goods and services they
> need.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023, at 2:18 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Have just raised this for discussion on both the Forum & Discord, so
> > also throwing it out here.
> >
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_towns_by_relative_importance%2C_not_just_population_size
> >
> > Any thoughts or comments welcome, in any place!
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[cleary]

I agree that population is not necessarily the only factor but, in practice, 
population correlates closely with the services and facilities available in a 
location which is effectively the "relative importance", isn't it?

I presume you are considering putting bigger dots and bigger writing on the map 
 for small settlements in isolated areas. Map renderers can do that for 
themselves if they wish. It is more important for OSM to show on-the-ground 
truth.  If a small settlement has few services,  then showing it as a town is 
misleading. 

Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in OSM but 
neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a hotel, small 
primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a coffee in either place 
last time I visited. I don't think either place had even a small supermarket or 
convenience store. Unlikely to find a doctor.  Probably wouldn't find a car 
mechanic, couldn't buy a new tyre if you needed one. The locals all travel a 
couple of hundred kilometres for shopping, health care etc.  I find it very 
misleading to label these places as towns, just because they are the largest 
settlements in their respective vicinities.  The towns are the places where 
people go to get the goods and services they need.







On Wed, 27 Sep 2023, at 2:18 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Have just raised this for discussion on both the Forum & Discord, so 
> also throwing it out here.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_towns_by_relative_importance%2C_not_just_population_size
>
> Any thoughts or comments welcome, in any place!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 16:29, Ian Sergeant  wrote:

> Aren't most places classified by the government authority as
> cities/villages/towns/localities/suburbs?
>

Possibly so, but they don't necessarily match what OSM says!

Is it done by population currently?  I didn't think so..
>

Not by Govt, but population is supposed to be (or at least was) the main
criteria for OSM.

Have now added some possible criteria to the Guideline's Talk page

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Ian Sergeant]

Aren't most places classified by the government authority as
cities/villages/towns/localities/suburbs?

Is it done by population currently?  I didn't think so..

Ian.


On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 14:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Have just raised this for discussion on both the Forum & Discord, so also
> throwing it out here.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_towns_by_relative_importance%2C_not_just_population_size
>
> Any thoughts or comments welcome, in any place!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Have just raised this for discussion on both the Forum & Discord, so also
throwing it out here.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_towns_by_relative_importance%2C_not_just_population_size

Any thoughts or comments welcome, in any place!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au