Some jurisdictions define city status in law, some don't. Among those jurisdictions that do define cities in law, not all use the same definition. This not only can vary from country to country, but even within the same country (for example, in the USA, the state of Tennessee doesn't define what is a city, the state of Virginia does do so).
-------Original Email------- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Tagging Metropolis >From :mailto:ed...@billiau.net Date :Wed Jan 19 04:07:35 America/Chicago 2011 > On 19 January 2011 16:49, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: >> atlases etc. A town of 50,000 would barely even rate a mention in >> France, whereas that's pretty big for Australia. And a town like Eucla >> in the nullarbor (pop 50) has very high prominence as it's the only >> place for many miles with accommodation. > > I didn't say 'town', I said places of 50,000 calling themselves cities > (eg Dubbo, Tamworth), or the 'city' of Gympie which has ~10-15,000, > city is a subjective term applied for various reasons. In any case the > lone place in the middle of no where aren't cities, but regional > centres. > city status is defined in law some cities are really small places, even in the UK, and some are large In NSW, AU, cities are defined by parliamentary decision, and it means that the Shire President gets renamed the Mayor. Some other things related to planning change - if a place is outside the town boundary of a shire, then little planning approval is needed, and inside the city, planning permission for everything is needed to the city boundary. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
