Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019, 20:25 Joseph Eisenberg  > “We made up a sui generis admin_level=3 for New York City.”
>
> Ha! Not a bad idea for NY/NJ/Connecticut
>
> But I think you mean admin_level=5? ;-)
>

Yes, I miscounted. Oops!

>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> “We made up a sui generis admin_level=3 for New York City.”

Ha! Not a bad idea for NY/NJ/Connecticut

But I think you mean admin_level=5? ;-)

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 12:25 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 6:22 AM Simon Poole  wrote:
> > The weird thing is the mixing of place and administrative entities which
> > actually leads to the inversion issues, go back read your text and you
> > will find it difficult to determine when you are talking about one or
> > the other.
>
> You're right, and I should have referred to Hamlet, Village, Town, and
> City - capitalized - when speaking of the political entities.  (I
> missed doing that.)
>
> We do *not* use the political organization in place=*.  There's no
> inversion in the place=* hierarchy. The City (capital C, the political
> entity) of Sherrill, for instance is (or ought to be, I haven't
> checked lately whether it's still right) mapped place=village. The
> Hamlet (capital H) of Brentwood should be place=city or place=suburb -
> I don't recall how far out the locals down that way decided to extend
> suburbia in their mapping, and they're more qualified than I am to
> make that decision. place=* is generally tagged on a point
> representing the cultural/political center of the place - often near a
> town square, post office, city hall, courthouse, railroad station or
> similar identifiable "middle", not a geographic center. We don't tag
> the boundary with place=*.
>
> There are some administrative entities (some suburban Towns come to
> mind) that really are political divisions without identifiable
> 'places' - and those just get boundary=administrative without a
> corresponding place=*
>
> The only tagging that follows the legal designation of Hamlet,
> Village, Town, City, and County or Borough is boundary=administrative.
> The political organization is encoded in admin_level=*. There are some
> corner cases in admin_level - but those mirror the messy structure of
> our government. For example, the five Counties/Boroughs that make up
> New York City have ceded their legislative powers (and most of their
> executive powers as well) to the City, but retain an independent
> judiciary. (We made up a sui generis admin_level=3 for New York City.)
>
> We do not invert place=*. If it's inverted, it's mistagged.  We do
> occasionally invert the topology of boundary=administrative, but that
> reflects reality in that the way our municipal governments are
> organized also inverts admin_level. Odd things happen when your form
> of govenrment is ad-hoc-cracy.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 6:22 AM Simon Poole  wrote:
> The weird thing is the mixing of place and administrative entities which
> actually leads to the inversion issues, go back read your text and you
> will find it difficult to determine when you are talking about one or
> the other.

You're right, and I should have referred to Hamlet, Village, Town, and
City - capitalized - when speaking of the political entities.  (I
missed doing that.)

We do *not* use the political organization in place=*.  There's no
inversion in the place=* hierarchy. The City (capital C, the political
entity) of Sherrill, for instance is (or ought to be, I haven't
checked lately whether it's still right) mapped place=village. The
Hamlet (capital H) of Brentwood should be place=city or place=suburb -
I don't recall how far out the locals down that way decided to extend
suburbia in their mapping, and they're more qualified than I am to
make that decision. place=* is generally tagged on a point
representing the cultural/political center of the place - often near a
town square, post office, city hall, courthouse, railroad station or
similar identifiable "middle", not a geographic center. We don't tag
the boundary with place=*.

There are some administrative entities (some suburban Towns come to
mind) that really are political divisions without identifiable
'places' - and those just get boundary=administrative without a
corresponding place=*

The only tagging that follows the legal designation of Hamlet,
Village, Town, City, and County or Borough is boundary=administrative.
The political organization is encoded in admin_level=*. There are some
corner cases in admin_level - but those mirror the messy structure of
our government. For example, the five Counties/Boroughs that make up
New York City have ceded their legislative powers (and most of their
executive powers as well) to the City, but retain an independent
judiciary. (We made up a sui generis admin_level=3 for New York City.)

We do not invert place=*. If it's inverted, it's mistagged.  We do
occasionally invert the topology of boundary=administrative, but that
reflects reality in that the way our municipal governments are
organized also inverts admin_level. Odd things happen when your form
of govenrment is ad-hoc-cracy.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Simon Poole]

Am 02.01.2019 um 19:01 schrieb Kevin Kenny:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:39 AM Simon Poole  wrote:
>> In any case, on your original question, I would tend towards a national 
>> consensus that doesn't deviate too much from the population guidelines in 
>> the wiki, if at all reasonable. The US-Hamlet usage is an oddity that, IMHO, 
>> should not serve as a role model.
> What's odd?
>
> Our administrative boundaries? I can't fix that. (Sometimes, I do
> think US mappers get treated with "the tagging model is fine, fix your
> country!" but I don't *think* that's what you're arguing here.)  We
> also have administrative regions with indefinite boundaries, which
> means that there's some force-fitting in OSM - but that's what we
> have. Not all our county lines have ever been surveyed. (US government
> practice is to map them with a fainter line and the words INDEFINITE
> BOUNDARY as at https://caltopo.com/l/D1KV.)
>
> Our data modelling? In US practice, place=* is based on relative
> importance, not on legal designation. Any boundary=administrative, of
> course, has to follow the legal designation, and in New York at least,
> the designations of 'city', 'town', 'village' and 'hamlet' are based
> on form of government, not on size or importance. That's why we
> *don't* use them to inform place=*, but represent them with
> admin_level=*. (Otherwise, it's a total mess, because of the size
> inversions that I mentioned.
>
> By the way, I'd call it a 'New York State hamlet usage', because other
> states have other forms of municipal government. That's why we have
> that involved table on the Wiki for mapping the administrative regions
> of the different states to admin_level=*.  Also, our admin_level's are
> not strictly hierarchical, because our municipal governments aren't
> either. But we don't have the luxury of making our politics fit our
> map.
>
> Making place=* depend on relative importance or population, while
> boundary=administrative depends on political organization, seems to
> follow accepted OSM practice, as far as I can tell. Where have we gone
> astray?

The weird thing is the mixing of place and administrative entities which
actually leads to the inversion issues, go back read your text and you
will find it difficult to determine when you are talking about one or
the other.

May be we need, instead of using place values, a specific key for
mapping the admin levels to "local" names of administrative entities.

Simon



>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:39 AM Simon Poole  wrote:
> In any case, on your original question, I would tend towards a national 
> consensus that doesn't deviate too much from the population guidelines in the 
> wiki, if at all reasonable. The US-Hamlet usage is an oddity that, IMHO, 
> should not serve as a role model.

What's odd?

Our administrative boundaries? I can't fix that. (Sometimes, I do
think US mappers get treated with "the tagging model is fine, fix your
country!" but I don't *think* that's what you're arguing here.)  We
also have administrative regions with indefinite boundaries, which
means that there's some force-fitting in OSM - but that's what we
have. Not all our county lines have ever been surveyed. (US government
practice is to map them with a fainter line and the words INDEFINITE
BOUNDARY as at https://caltopo.com/l/D1KV.)

Our data modelling? In US practice, place=* is based on relative
importance, not on legal designation. Any boundary=administrative, of
course, has to follow the legal designation, and in New York at least,
the designations of 'city', 'town', 'village' and 'hamlet' are based
on form of government, not on size or importance. That's why we
*don't* use them to inform place=*, but represent them with
admin_level=*. (Otherwise, it's a total mess, because of the size
inversions that I mentioned.)

By the way, I'd call it a 'New York State hamlet usage', because other
states have other forms of municipal government. That's why we have
that involved table on the Wiki for mapping the administrative regions
of the different states to admin_level=*.  Also, our admin_level's are
not strictly hierarchical, because our municipal governments aren't
either. But we don't have the luxury of making our politics fit our
map.

Making place=* depend on relative importance or population, while
boundary=administrative depends on political organization, seems to
follow accepted OSM practice, as far as I can tell. Where have we gone
astray?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Simon Poole]

At the danger of throwing a spanner in the works (or better sabots :-)):
there is an ongoing discussion on place mapping. Mainly taking place
here https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/2816

Essentially  the relationship between administrative divisions and
places/settlements is complicated and while we have working tagging for
administrative entities (and for them I would normally suggest following
whatever the "official" hierarchy and designation is), our place
modelling is a bit of a mess, which among other issue has led to
administrative boundaries being used for places.

In any case, on your original question, I would tend towards a national
consensus that doesn't deviate too much from the population guidelines
in the wiki, if at all reasonable. The US-Hamlet usage is an oddity
that, IMHO, should not serve as a role model.

Simon


Am 02.01.2019 um 05:12 schrieb Allan Mustard:
> Not according to the wiki.  It seems nodes are the accepted way of
> identifying a settlement, municipal or otherwise.  
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:11 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
> mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 2. Jan 2019, at 00:44, Allan Mustard  > wrote:
> >
> > What do you think?
>
>
> I have never understood why people wanted to add place tags to
> administrative territorial entities like countries, states or
> municipalities. Aren’t these thoroughly defined with
> boundary=administrative and the related admin_level?
>
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 2. Jan 2019, at 01:18, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>> I have never understood why people wanted to add place tags to 
>> administrative territorial entities like countries, states or 
>> municipalities. Aren’t these thoroughly defined with boundary=administrative 
>> and the related admin_level?
> 
> Around here, it's because there are a fair number of places that don't
> have any form of self-government, but are still identifiable villages.


this is a different thing, place for settlements is perfectly fine, I agree 
they can be orthogonal to administrative subdivisions. 

Countries without an administrative border are harder, depending on our 
interpretation of the meaning of place=country it might not be completely 
impossible any more, as long as we had the on the ground rule of defacto 
control it wasn’t though (i.e. until very recently).

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Jan 2019, at 01:11, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> I understand that the UK is an exception, because the status of
> 'town', 'village', 'city' and so on relates to whether a given
> settlement has a church, a market, and similar facilities, and
> therefore does reflect somewhat the status of the settlement relative
> to its hinterland. (That scheme would surely not work for the US,
> where for instance, we have many country churches that are not part of
> larger settlements; it may be that the rectory is the only house
> within a couple of km in any direction.)


this is not a contradiction, it eventually shows there simply isn’t (or wasn’t) 
a town/village around. “church” isn’t the only criterion, it works quite well 
for the christian European context.


Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Jan 2019, at 01:11, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> but legal status is usually a rather
> poor indication.


in Italy we use the status to distinguish between town and village, and I 
believe in Germany and other places in Europe it is also done like this.

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 02:19, Allan Mustard  wrote:

> Very interesting.  In the Turkmen case, the classifications are defined in
> law and involve both size (though population data are secret) and type of
> governance structure (for full details please see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure).
>
>
> Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a governance
> structure (a village council with a chair who serves effectively as the
> municipal manager/mayor)?  In my experience a "neighbourhood" lacks any
> sort of governance structure aside from (sometimes) Neighborhood Watch.
>

I have the feeling that hamlet/village/town/city in OSM are (now) rather
arbitrary labels which don't
necessarily indicate size or governmental structure or available facilities
but "importance" for some
vague, country-specific value of "importance."  The values are essentially
a way of specifying which
population centres appear at which zoom levels.

As with many tags in OSM, with hindsight we'd have done it differently, but
it's almost impossible
to change things now.  Which is a shame, because with vector tiling we
might have the possibility
for users to select which characteristic they wish to determine what is
displayed at a particular
zoom level: population size, admin level or available facilities as denoted
by hamlet/village/etc.
Because hamlet/village are not always used as described in the wiki, and
when they are used
in such a way they essentially echo population size, we'd need yet another
tag for that to happen,
with hamlet/village eventually becoming ignored.  Good luck with that.

I have no idea how to resolve your problem.  I suspect it would require a
diplomat to get all
sides to agree, and where are we going to find one of those? :)

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Dolly Andriatsiferana]

>
> I suspect this sort of classification can work even in places that do not
> have good population figures available, like where I map in Indonesia. For
> example:
> a farm or isolated dwelling has only 1 or 2 households, a hamlet has a few
> families but no services (maybe there is a tiny kiosk or a very small place
> of worship)
> A village has some services but only for the local community; people do
> not travel to a village to go shopping, except from the closest farms or
> hamlets. Probably there is a primary school, certainly there is some sort
> of place of worship.
> A town is a significant local destination. People from the surrounding
> hamlets and villages will go to the nearest town to buy clothing, tools,
> specialty foods and other necessities. There may be some cultural and
> entertainment options, and usually some level of government services. Towns
> always have secondary education (high schools) in the countries that I have
> visited.
> A city has all this as well as major healthcare and educational
> institutions, and is often as administrative center for businesses,
> organizations (NGOs, religious) and local government. People travel to
> cities from the whole surrounding region, including from towns, for
> business, entertainment, cultural facilities etc. generally a city should
> have just about all of the services that a middle-class person would use
> (though the rich may need to go to larger cities for some specialty and
> luxury services - OSM doesn’t have a special class for large cities or
> global cities however)
> By population a hamlet has less than 1000 residents (often less than 100),
> and a city has over 50,000 (usually over 100,000), but the population
> cut-offs vary by region.
> A very isolated settlement may still qualify as a town with a relatively
> small population if it has the only high school, government office,
> supermarket and airport on a large island, for example - in this case the
> whole population of the island comes to the town for services even if they
> do not live there, so I would be comfortable tagging a settlement of 4000
> people as a town on an island with 200,000 people but no other settlements
> over 1000 people in size.


+1

I totally agree with Joseph Eisenberg on this. When classifying settlements
(place=*), I think that their 'relative importance' should be valued more
than administrative status or population, although there are often overlaps
(administrative unit centers are often where services exist, such as
hospitals, schools, markets, offices etc.). That's according to the part of
the world that I know, there might be exceptions for some countries.

All the best.

Le mer. 2 janv. 2019 à 07:45, Allan Mustard  a écrit :

> I put some examples in the table located here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:17 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It depends on if it is part of a continuous urban settlement or not.
>>
>> I use “suburb” and “neighborhood” for places that are considered to be
>> part of a larger place. Usually these are mainly urban places, where most
>> people are involved in services and industry rather than agriculture or
>> forestry or fishing, and a significant percentage of worker travel to the
>> larger town center for work.
>>
>> Sometimes a suburb has it’s own government and town council, as is common
>> in the USA. In other cases (Eg Shanghai), a municipality includes area of
>> farmland and villages that are clearly separate settlements. So I don’t
>> think that the government status can be the distinguishing characteristic.
>>
>> Perhaps you have a particular example in mind?
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:30 PM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>>
>>> By that definition, then, calling an autonomous village with its own
>>> council a "neighbourhood" would be erroneous, correct?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 10:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 In OSM a neighborhood is a named part of a larger settlement, usually a
 town or suburb or city, though in Indonesia some “desa” (villages) consist
 of a dozen named “kampung” (neighborhoods).

 Suburbs are also considered parts of larger towns or cities. So a city
 can be divided into a dozen suburbs, each of which is divided into a
 half-dozen neighborhoods
 On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Allan Mustard 
 wrote:

> Very interesting.  In the Turkmen case, the classifications are
> defined in law and involve both size (though population data are secret)
> and type of governance structure (for full details please see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure).
>
>
> Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a
> governance structure (a village council with a chair who serves 
> effectively
> as the municipal 

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Allan Mustard]

I put some examples in the table located here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:17 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> It depends on if it is part of a continuous urban settlement or not.
>
> I use “suburb” and “neighborhood” for places that are considered to be
> part of a larger place. Usually these are mainly urban places, where most
> people are involved in services and industry rather than agriculture or
> forestry or fishing, and a significant percentage of worker travel to the
> larger town center for work.
>
> Sometimes a suburb has it’s own government and town council, as is common
> in the USA. In other cases (Eg Shanghai), a municipality includes area of
> farmland and villages that are clearly separate settlements. So I don’t
> think that the government status can be the distinguishing characteristic.
>
> Perhaps you have a particular example in mind?
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:30 PM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>
>> By that definition, then, calling an autonomous village with its own
>> council a "neighbourhood" would be erroneous, correct?
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 10:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In OSM a neighborhood is a named part of a larger settlement, usually a
>>> town or suburb or city, though in Indonesia some “desa” (villages) consist
>>> of a dozen named “kampung” (neighborhoods).
>>>
>>> Suburbs are also considered parts of larger towns or cities. So a city
>>> can be divided into a dozen suburbs, each of which is divided into a
>>> half-dozen neighborhoods
>>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>>>
 Very interesting.  In the Turkmen case, the classifications are defined
 in law and involve both size (though population data are secret) and type
 of governance structure (for full details please see
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure).


 Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a
 governance structure (a village council with a chair who serves effectively
 as the municipal manager/mayor)?  In my experience a "neighbourhood" lacks
 any sort of governance structure aside from (sometimes) Neighborhood Watch.

 apm-wa

 On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
 joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Those municipalities are relations of type=boundary and
> boundary=administrative with an appropriate admin_level, no?
>
> These are different from the OSM settlements, which are mapped as a
> node at the center of a city, town, village, hamlet or isolated dwelling 
> or
> farm.
>
> While the pages suggest certain population ranges for each of these
> settled places, in the past they were defined by available services in
> England. A city had a cathedral or university, a town had a (full-time)
> marketplace, a village had a church, and a hamlet was too small for its 
> own
> church but had more than one family. That’s the historic basis for the OSM
> system, though in modern times the standards are less certain.
>
> I suspect this sort of classification can work even in places that do
> not have good population figures available, like where I map in Indonesia.
> For example:
>
> a farm or isolated dwelling has only 1 or 2 households, a hamlet has a
> few families but no services (maybe there is a tiny kiosk or a very small
> place of worship)
>
> A village has some services but only for the local community; people
> do not travel to a village to go shopping, except from the closest farms 
> or
> hamlets. Probably there is a primary school, certainly there is some sort
> of place of worship.
>
> A town is a significant local destination. People from the surrounding
> hamlets and villages will go to the nearest town to buy clothing, tools,
> specialty foods and other necessities. There may be some cultural and
> entertainment options, and usually some level of government services. 
> Towns
> always have secondary education (high schools) in the countries that I 
> have
> visited.
>
> A city has all this as well as major healthcare and educational
> institutions, and is often as administrative center for businesses,
> organizations (NGOs, religious) and local government. People travel to
> cities from the whole surrounding region, including from towns, for
> business, entertainment, cultural facilities etc. generally a city should
> have just about all of the services that a middle-class person would use
> (though the rich may need to go to larger cities for some specialty and
> luxury services - OSM doesn’t have a special class for large cities or
> global cities however)
>
> By population a hamlet has less than 1000 residents (often less than

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It depends on if it is part of a continuous urban settlement or not.

I use “suburb” and “neighborhood” for places that are considered to be part
of a larger place. Usually these are mainly urban places, where most people
are involved in services and industry rather than agriculture or forestry
or fishing, and a significant percentage of worker travel to the larger
town center for work.

Sometimes a suburb has it’s own government and town council, as is common
in the USA. In other cases (Eg Shanghai), a municipality includes area of
farmland and villages that are clearly separate settlements. So I don’t
think that the government status can be the distinguishing characteristic.

Perhaps you have a particular example in mind?

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:30 PM Allan Mustard  wrote:

> By that definition, then, calling an autonomous village with its own
> council a "neighbourhood" would be erroneous, correct?
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 10:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In OSM a neighborhood is a named part of a larger settlement, usually a
>> town or suburb or city, though in Indonesia some “desa” (villages) consist
>> of a dozen named “kampung” (neighborhoods).
>>
>> Suburbs are also considered parts of larger towns or cities. So a city
>> can be divided into a dozen suburbs, each of which is divided into a
>> half-dozen neighborhoods
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>>
>>> Very interesting.  In the Turkmen case, the classifications are defined
>>> in law and involve both size (though population data are secret) and type
>>> of governance structure (for full details please see
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure).
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a
>>> governance structure (a village council with a chair who serves effectively
>>> as the municipal manager/mayor)?  In my experience a "neighbourhood" lacks
>>> any sort of governance structure aside from (sometimes) Neighborhood Watch.
>>>
>>> apm-wa
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Those municipalities are relations of type=boundary and
 boundary=administrative with an appropriate admin_level, no?

 These are different from the OSM settlements, which are mapped as a
 node at the center of a city, town, village, hamlet or isolated dwelling or
 farm.

 While the pages suggest certain population ranges for each of these
 settled places, in the past they were defined by available services in
 England. A city had a cathedral or university, a town had a (full-time)
 marketplace, a village had a church, and a hamlet was too small for its own
 church but had more than one family. That’s the historic basis for the OSM
 system, though in modern times the standards are less certain.

 I suspect this sort of classification can work even in places that do
 not have good population figures available, like where I map in Indonesia.
 For example:

 a farm or isolated dwelling has only 1 or 2 households, a hamlet has a
 few families but no services (maybe there is a tiny kiosk or a very small
 place of worship)

 A village has some services but only for the local community; people do
 not travel to a village to go shopping, except from the closest farms or
 hamlets. Probably there is a primary school, certainly there is some sort
 of place of worship.

 A town is a significant local destination. People from the surrounding
 hamlets and villages will go to the nearest town to buy clothing, tools,
 specialty foods and other necessities. There may be some cultural and
 entertainment options, and usually some level of government services. Towns
 always have secondary education (high schools) in the countries that I have
 visited.

 A city has all this as well as major healthcare and educational
 institutions, and is often as administrative center for businesses,
 organizations (NGOs, religious) and local government. People travel to
 cities from the whole surrounding region, including from towns, for
 business, entertainment, cultural facilities etc. generally a city should
 have just about all of the services that a middle-class person would use
 (though the rich may need to go to larger cities for some specialty and
 luxury services - OSM doesn’t have a special class for large cities or
 global cities however)

 By population a hamlet has less than 1000 residents (often less than
 100), and a city has over 50,000 (usually over 100,000), but the population
 cut-offs vary by region.

 A very isolated settlement may still qualify as a town with a
 relatively small population if it has the only high school, government
 office, supermarket and airport on a large island, for 

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Allan Mustard]

Not according to the wiki.  It seems nodes are the accepted way of
identifying a settlement, municipal or otherwise.

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:11 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 2. Jan 2019, at 00:44, Allan Mustard  wrote:
> >
> > What do you think?
>
>
> I have never understood why people wanted to add place tags to
> administrative territorial entities like countries, states or
> municipalities. Aren’t these thoroughly defined with
> boundary=administrative and the related admin_level?
>
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Joseph Eisenberg]

That’s the American million, you remove 3 zeros from the British version,
right? Like how a trillion is a billion? Something like that. :-)
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/million_billion_trillion.png
(See hover-over text)
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:48 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 10:32, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> But in a densely populated region, like Java (where there are 120,000
>> million people on one island),
>>
>
> Wow, I knew java was crowded ... :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 10:32, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> But in a densely populated region, like Java (where there are 120,000
> million people on one island),
>

Wow, I knew java was crowded ... :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Allan Mustard]

By that definition, then, calling an autonomous village with its own
council a "neighbourhood" would be erroneous, correct?

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 10:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> In OSM a neighborhood is a named part of a larger settlement, usually a
> town or suburb or city, though in Indonesia some “desa” (villages) consist
> of a dozen named “kampung” (neighborhoods).
>
> Suburbs are also considered parts of larger towns or cities. So a city can
> be divided into a dozen suburbs, each of which is divided into a half-dozen
> neighborhoods
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>
>> Very interesting.  In the Turkmen case, the classifications are defined
>> in law and involve both size (though population data are secret) and type
>> of governance structure (for full details please see
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure).
>>
>>
>> Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a
>> governance structure (a village council with a chair who serves effectively
>> as the municipal manager/mayor)?  In my experience a "neighbourhood" lacks
>> any sort of governance structure aside from (sometimes) Neighborhood Watch.
>>
>> apm-wa
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Those municipalities are relations of type=boundary and
>>> boundary=administrative with an appropriate admin_level, no?
>>>
>>> These are different from the OSM settlements, which are mapped as a node
>>> at the center of a city, town, village, hamlet or isolated dwelling or farm.
>>>
>>> While the pages suggest certain population ranges for each of these
>>> settled places, in the past they were defined by available services in
>>> England. A city had a cathedral or university, a town had a (full-time)
>>> marketplace, a village had a church, and a hamlet was too small for its own
>>> church but had more than one family. That’s the historic basis for the OSM
>>> system, though in modern times the standards are less certain.
>>>
>>> I suspect this sort of classification can work even in places that do
>>> not have good population figures available, like where I map in Indonesia.
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> a farm or isolated dwelling has only 1 or 2 households, a hamlet has a
>>> few families but no services (maybe there is a tiny kiosk or a very small
>>> place of worship)
>>>
>>> A village has some services but only for the local community; people do
>>> not travel to a village to go shopping, except from the closest farms or
>>> hamlets. Probably there is a primary school, certainly there is some sort
>>> of place of worship.
>>>
>>> A town is a significant local destination. People from the surrounding
>>> hamlets and villages will go to the nearest town to buy clothing, tools,
>>> specialty foods and other necessities. There may be some cultural and
>>> entertainment options, and usually some level of government services. Towns
>>> always have secondary education (high schools) in the countries that I have
>>> visited.
>>>
>>> A city has all this as well as major healthcare and educational
>>> institutions, and is often as administrative center for businesses,
>>> organizations (NGOs, religious) and local government. People travel to
>>> cities from the whole surrounding region, including from towns, for
>>> business, entertainment, cultural facilities etc. generally a city should
>>> have just about all of the services that a middle-class person would use
>>> (though the rich may need to go to larger cities for some specialty and
>>> luxury services - OSM doesn’t have a special class for large cities or
>>> global cities however)
>>>
>>> By population a hamlet has less than 1000 residents (often less than
>>> 100), and a city has over 50,000 (usually over 100,000), but the population
>>> cut-offs vary by region.
>>>
>>> A very isolated settlement may still qualify as a town with a relatively
>>> small population if it has the only high school, government office,
>>> supermarket and airport on a large island, for example - in this case the
>>> whole population of the island comes to the town for services even if they
>>> do not live there, so I would be comfortable tagging a settlement of 4000
>>> people as a town on an island with 200,000 people but no other settlements
>>> over 1000 people in size.
>>>
>>> This is how I tag places in eastern Indonesia, where many villages and
>>> towns are very isolated. Perhaps this is similar in your country?
>>>
>>> But in a densely populated region, like Java (where there are 120,000
>>> million people on one island), even a settlement with 20,000 people might
>>> just be a conglomeration of farming villages that hardly qualifies as a
>>> town, and a town could grow to 200,000 residents and still lack any
>>> characteristics of a city.
>>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:46 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>>>
 Looking for some guidance here from the tagging experts.  Please see

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Joseph Eisenberg]

In OSM a neighborhood is a named part of a larger settlement, usually a
town or suburb or city, though in Indonesia some “desa” (villages) consist
of a dozen named “kampung” (neighborhoods).

Suburbs are also considered parts of larger towns or cities. So a city can
be divided into a dozen suburbs, each of which is divided into a half-dozen
neighborhoods
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:

> Very interesting.  In the Turkmen case, the classifications are defined in
> law and involve both size (though population data are secret) and type of
> governance structure (for full details please see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure).
>
>
> Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a governance
> structure (a village council with a chair who serves effectively as the
> municipal manager/mayor)?  In my experience a "neighbourhood" lacks any
> sort of governance structure aside from (sometimes) Neighborhood Watch.
>
> apm-wa
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Those municipalities are relations of type=boundary and
>> boundary=administrative with an appropriate admin_level, no?
>>
>> These are different from the OSM settlements, which are mapped as a node
>> at the center of a city, town, village, hamlet or isolated dwelling or farm.
>>
>> While the pages suggest certain population ranges for each of these
>> settled places, in the past they were defined by available services in
>> England. A city had a cathedral or university, a town had a (full-time)
>> marketplace, a village had a church, and a hamlet was too small for its own
>> church but had more than one family. That’s the historic basis for the OSM
>> system, though in modern times the standards are less certain.
>>
>> I suspect this sort of classification can work even in places that do not
>> have good population figures available, like where I map in Indonesia. For
>> example:
>>
>> a farm or isolated dwelling has only 1 or 2 households, a hamlet has a
>> few families but no services (maybe there is a tiny kiosk or a very small
>> place of worship)
>>
>> A village has some services but only for the local community; people do
>> not travel to a village to go shopping, except from the closest farms or
>> hamlets. Probably there is a primary school, certainly there is some sort
>> of place of worship.
>>
>> A town is a significant local destination. People from the surrounding
>> hamlets and villages will go to the nearest town to buy clothing, tools,
>> specialty foods and other necessities. There may be some cultural and
>> entertainment options, and usually some level of government services. Towns
>> always have secondary education (high schools) in the countries that I have
>> visited.
>>
>> A city has all this as well as major healthcare and educational
>> institutions, and is often as administrative center for businesses,
>> organizations (NGOs, religious) and local government. People travel to
>> cities from the whole surrounding region, including from towns, for
>> business, entertainment, cultural facilities etc. generally a city should
>> have just about all of the services that a middle-class person would use
>> (though the rich may need to go to larger cities for some specialty and
>> luxury services - OSM doesn’t have a special class for large cities or
>> global cities however)
>>
>> By population a hamlet has less than 1000 residents (often less than
>> 100), and a city has over 50,000 (usually over 100,000), but the population
>> cut-offs vary by region.
>>
>> A very isolated settlement may still qualify as a town with a relatively
>> small population if it has the only high school, government office,
>> supermarket and airport on a large island, for example - in this case the
>> whole population of the island comes to the town for services even if they
>> do not live there, so I would be comfortable tagging a settlement of 4000
>> people as a town on an island with 200,000 people but no other settlements
>> over 1000 people in size.
>>
>> This is how I tag places in eastern Indonesia, where many villages and
>> towns are very isolated. Perhaps this is similar in your country?
>>
>> But in a densely populated region, like Java (where there are 120,000
>> million people on one island), even a settlement with 20,000 people might
>> just be a conglomeration of farming villages that hardly qualifies as a
>> town, and a town could grow to 200,000 residents and still lack any
>> characteristics of a city.
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:46 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>>
>>> Looking for some guidance here from the tagging experts.  Please see the
>>> dispute section on the Turkmenistan wiki discussion page
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Turkmenistan#Disputed:_Suggested_Place_Tags_for_Administrative_Subdivisions
>>>
>>> The nub is that I advocate classifying Turkmenistan's municipalities
>>> based on 

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Allan Mustard]

Very interesting.  In the Turkmen case, the classifications are defined in
law and involve both size (though population data are secret) and type of
governance structure (for full details please see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure).


Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a governance
structure (a village council with a chair who serves effectively as the
municipal manager/mayor)?  In my experience a "neighbourhood" lacks any
sort of governance structure aside from (sometimes) Neighborhood Watch.

apm-wa

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Those municipalities are relations of type=boundary and
> boundary=administrative with an appropriate admin_level, no?
>
> These are different from the OSM settlements, which are mapped as a node
> at the center of a city, town, village, hamlet or isolated dwelling or farm.
>
> While the pages suggest certain population ranges for each of these
> settled places, in the past they were defined by available services in
> England. A city had a cathedral or university, a town had a (full-time)
> marketplace, a village had a church, and a hamlet was too small for its own
> church but had more than one family. That’s the historic basis for the OSM
> system, though in modern times the standards are less certain.
>
> I suspect this sort of classification can work even in places that do not
> have good population figures available, like where I map in Indonesia. For
> example:
>
> a farm or isolated dwelling has only 1 or 2 households, a hamlet has a few
> families but no services (maybe there is a tiny kiosk or a very small place
> of worship)
>
> A village has some services but only for the local community; people do
> not travel to a village to go shopping, except from the closest farms or
> hamlets. Probably there is a primary school, certainly there is some sort
> of place of worship.
>
> A town is a significant local destination. People from the surrounding
> hamlets and villages will go to the nearest town to buy clothing, tools,
> specialty foods and other necessities. There may be some cultural and
> entertainment options, and usually some level of government services. Towns
> always have secondary education (high schools) in the countries that I have
> visited.
>
> A city has all this as well as major healthcare and educational
> institutions, and is often as administrative center for businesses,
> organizations (NGOs, religious) and local government. People travel to
> cities from the whole surrounding region, including from towns, for
> business, entertainment, cultural facilities etc. generally a city should
> have just about all of the services that a middle-class person would use
> (though the rich may need to go to larger cities for some specialty and
> luxury services - OSM doesn’t have a special class for large cities or
> global cities however)
>
> By population a hamlet has less than 1000 residents (often less than 100),
> and a city has over 50,000 (usually over 100,000), but the population
> cut-offs vary by region.
>
> A very isolated settlement may still qualify as a town with a relatively
> small population if it has the only high school, government office,
> supermarket and airport on a large island, for example - in this case the
> whole population of the island comes to the town for services even if they
> do not live there, so I would be comfortable tagging a settlement of 4000
> people as a town on an island with 200,000 people but no other settlements
> over 1000 people in size.
>
> This is how I tag places in eastern Indonesia, where many villages and
> towns are very isolated. Perhaps this is similar in your country?
>
> But in a densely populated region, like Java (where there are 120,000
> million people on one island), even a settlement with 20,000 people might
> just be a conglomeration of farming villages that hardly qualifies as a
> town, and a town could grow to 200,000 residents and still lack any
> characteristics of a city.
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:46 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>
>> Looking for some guidance here from the tagging experts.  Please see the
>> dispute section on the Turkmenistan wiki discussion page
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Turkmenistan#Disputed:_Suggested_Place_Tags_for_Administrative_Subdivisions
>>
>> The nub is that I advocate classifying Turkmenistan's municipalities
>> based on their official status according to the host government (see the
>> wiki article Districts in Turkmenistan).  Another mapper, Aka_Bob,
>> disagrees and insists that there are OSM guidelines based on population (I
>> note that the OSM place=village article says a village can have up to
>> 10,000 population, which in the United States is laughable--that would be a
>> town or a city).  Aka_Bob edited that section of the wiki article
>> unilaterally without first consulting local mappers.  I have no intention
>> of entering into an edit war, 

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Those municipalities are relations of type=boundary and
boundary=administrative with an appropriate admin_level, no?

These are different from the OSM settlements, which are mapped as a node at
the center of a city, town, village, hamlet or isolated dwelling or farm.

While the pages suggest certain population ranges for each of these settled
places, in the past they were defined by available services in England. A
city had a cathedral or university, a town had a (full-time) marketplace, a
village had a church, and a hamlet was too small for its own church but had
more than one family. That’s the historic basis for the OSM system, though
in modern times the standards are less certain.

I suspect this sort of classification can work even in places that do not
have good population figures available, like where I map in Indonesia. For
example:

a farm or isolated dwelling has only 1 or 2 households, a hamlet has a few
families but no services (maybe there is a tiny kiosk or a very small place
of worship)

A village has some services but only for the local community; people do not
travel to a village to go shopping, except from the closest farms or
hamlets. Probably there is a primary school, certainly there is some sort
of place of worship.

A town is a significant local destination. People from the surrounding
hamlets and villages will go to the nearest town to buy clothing, tools,
specialty foods and other necessities. There may be some cultural and
entertainment options, and usually some level of government services. Towns
always have secondary education (high schools) in the countries that I have
visited.

A city has all this as well as major healthcare and educational
institutions, and is often as administrative center for businesses,
organizations (NGOs, religious) and local government. People travel to
cities from the whole surrounding region, including from towns, for
business, entertainment, cultural facilities etc. generally a city should
have just about all of the services that a middle-class person would use
(though the rich may need to go to larger cities for some specialty and
luxury services - OSM doesn’t have a special class for large cities or
global cities however)

By population a hamlet has less than 1000 residents (often less than 100),
and a city has over 50,000 (usually over 100,000), but the population
cut-offs vary by region.

A very isolated settlement may still qualify as a town with a relatively
small population if it has the only high school, government office,
supermarket and airport on a large island, for example - in this case the
whole population of the island comes to the town for services even if they
do not live there, so I would be comfortable tagging a settlement of 4000
people as a town on an island with 200,000 people but no other settlements
over 1000 people in size.

This is how I tag places in eastern Indonesia, where many villages and
towns are very isolated. Perhaps this is similar in your country?

But in a densely populated region, like Java (where there are 120,000
million people on one island), even a settlement with 20,000 people might
just be a conglomeration of farming villages that hardly qualifies as a
town, and a town could grow to 200,000 residents and still lack any
characteristics of a city.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:46 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:

> Looking for some guidance here from the tagging experts.  Please see the
> dispute section on the Turkmenistan wiki discussion page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Turkmenistan#Disputed:_Suggested_Place_Tags_for_Administrative_Subdivisions
>
> The nub is that I advocate classifying Turkmenistan's municipalities based
> on their official status according to the host government (see the wiki
> article Districts in Turkmenistan).  Another mapper, Aka_Bob, disagrees and
> insists that there are OSM guidelines based on population (I note that the
> OSM place=village article says a village can have up to 10,000 population,
> which in the United States is laughable--that would be a town or a city).
> Aka_Bob edited that section of the wiki article unilaterally without first
> consulting local mappers.  I have no intention of entering into an edit
> war, but rather want to take this out to the community for discussion.
>
> I'd like to hear what people think.  Opening classification of Turkmen
> muncipalities to free interpretation rather than a standard official
> classification strikes me as a recipe for chaos, particularly since
> official population data have not been published for over a decade (the
> 2012 and 2017 censuses were made secret) but maybe that's just me.  What do
> you think?
>
> Best regards and Happy New Year to all!
>
> apm-wa
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:11 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> I have never understood why people wanted to add place tags to administrative 
> territorial entities like countries, states or municipalities. Aren’t these 
> thoroughly defined with boundary=administrative and the related admin_level?

Around here, it's because there are a fair number of places that don't
have any form of self-government, but are still identifiable villages.
Their boundaries are generally indefinite, but those that live in them
would give the names of those places when asked for their home town.
In New York State, these get mapped (admin_level=8) if their
boundaries are definite (generally, fixed by defining legislation of
the township of which they are a part), and as place=* nodes
otherwise. They range in size from settlements with a handful of
houses to small cities with populations up to about 60,000.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[marc marc]

Le 02.01.19 à 00:44, Allan Mustard a écrit :
> Looking for some guidance here from the tagging experts.  Please see the 
> dispute section on the Turkmenistan wiki discussion page 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Turkmenistan#Disputed:_Suggested_Place_Tags_for_Administrative_Subdivisions

it seems useful to me that each country/local community:
- keeps as much as possible the same general principle (different value 
to describe that there is a difference between a hamlet of a few houses 
and the largest city with some intermediate value between the 2)
- adapts the criteria between these categories according to the local 
context (if no population measures exist but an official classification 
gives an idea, it seems to me a good idea to use it)

but for administrative subdivisions, place=* look like wrong,
boundary=administrative + admin_level is the good schema
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 6:46 PM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>
> Looking for some guidance here from the tagging experts.  Please see the 
> dispute section on the Turkmenistan wiki discussion page 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Turkmenistan#Disputed:_Suggested_Place_Tags_for_Administrative_Subdivisions
>
> The nub is that I advocate classifying Turkmenistan's municipalities based on 
> their official status according to the host government (see the wiki article 
> Districts in Turkmenistan).  Another mapper, Aka_Bob, disagrees and insists 
> that there are OSM guidelines based on population (I note that the OSM 
> place=village article says a village can have up to 10,000 population, which 
> in the United States is laughable--that would be a town or a city).  Aka_Bob 
> edited that section of the wiki article unilaterally without first consulting 
> local mappers.  I have no intention of entering into an edit war, but rather 
> want to take this out to the community for discussion.

I once laboured under the same misconception, and mismapped some
villages in New York before more experienced mappers showed me the
error of my ways. The consensus appears to be that Aka_Bob is right.
With that said, there will always be some overlap among the
categories, and it is possible that population may not be the only
criterion in a given locality, but legal status is usually a rather
poor indication.

In the US, at least, we use admin_level to track the legal status of
villages, towns, et cetera, and instead follow population guidelines.
Anything else for New York State, for instance, would lead to absurd
results. We have some legal 'hamlets' (e.g., Brentwood, Levittown)
that are actually small cities with population around 60,000 - and a
chartered 'city' with a population of about 3,000. Our 'towns' range
in population from 38 (Red House) to about 760,000 (Hempstead), and
our 'villages' from 11 (Dering Harbor) to 54,000 (Hempstead Village).
(Yes, our largest 'hamlet' is larger than our largest 'village'!)

Since in practice, what place=* is used for is to rate 'relative
importance' (and so guide at what zoom level a name will appear, and
how big a font will be used for it), the population guideline works
better in practice than an attempt to follow the legal definition.

There's been fairly extensive discussion, here and in talk-us, that
led up to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level
for the US admin levels.  I'd suspect that a similar approach would
work well for the administrative boundaries in Turkmenistan.

I understand that the UK is an exception, because the status of
'town', 'village', 'city' and so on relates to whether a given
settlement has a church, a market, and similar facilities, and
therefore does reflect somewhat the status of the settlement relative
to its hinterland. (That scheme would surely not work for the US,
where for instance, we have many country churches that are not part of
larger settlements; it may be that the rectory is the only house
within a couple of km in any direction.)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Jan 2019, at 00:44, Allan Mustard  wrote:
> 
> What do you think?


I have never understood why people wanted to add place tags to administrative 
territorial entities like countries, states or municipalities. Aren’t these 
thoroughly defined with boundary=administrative and the related admin_level?


Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging