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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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