Arrgh, I've just noted that I havn't sent this to the list but as a direct reply. So here another try:
2012/12/12 Nathan Van Der Meulen <natvan...@yahoo.com> > I completely disagree that population alone should be used to classify a > location (unless the populations are seriously reduced). Going by the > suggested populations, places like Tenterfield, Glen Innes, Charleville > will become villages and Norseman, Laverton and Lockhart hamlets. > I agree. > The population method may well work in most of Europe as a 'village' of 2,000 > people will rarely be further than 50km from a town and therefore won't > need facilities beyond a basic fuel station and general store. Rural > Australia is a different game. > Well, in fact it doesn't really work well in Europe either. To me it always should be a mix of population *and* regional importance/situation. So while a place like Noseman (or probably Wyndham) should definelty qualify for place=town something in similar size in a more densely populated area might not. So my concern is more along the lines that even if a place legally/formally is a city I wouldn't automatically imply "place=city". Michael
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
