Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:41 AM, David dban...@internode.on.net wrote: I think it might be a mistake to suggest that we don't get to have a say in how (eg) the main osm map is rendered just because we can personally render our own. Firstly, setting up to do that rendering is not trivial, nor is reconfiguring it for a different view. But mainly because we contribute to the map to make it useful for other people. Exactly. We do all have a say in how the default and other layers are presented on osm.org. And if we wish to suggest a change then suggesting such a change along with a patch to execute it stands a much better chance of adoption. Also, and this is important, making a new style is really fun. Now, i don't see anyone sponsoring the necessary server and bandwidth capabilities (maybe i am wrong?) here in Oz. So i think we should assume that the 'other people' we want to help will be looking at osm.org or at an app that has been written by someone guided by what they see at osm.org . Designing a new map style does not require massive hardware, a years-old box is just fine. That said, there is a brand new shiny tile cache server in Brisbane. So there is some 'sponsorship' in Australia now. http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/10/04/australia-server/ My point is not to discourage you by saying that your idea is unworthy. My point is to encourage you by letting you know about the tools that are already available to you, so that you can solve the problem that you see. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Richard, I most certainly don't disagree with with you but maybe the picture is a little incomplete ? On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 11:52 -0500, Richard Weait wrote: ... if we wish to suggest a change then suggesting such a change along with a patch to execute it stands a much better chance of adoption. https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1447 lodged four years ago, several suggestions and examples of how it can be done. Its about rendering unsealed roads differently from the default sealed. Its a safety issue and very important in Australia. No progress. Also, and this is important, making a new style is really fun. Fun, but as I said, not easy. I have been doing so, trying to demonstrate how to deal with unsealed and 4x4 roads. My time is limited and I've made little progress. I of all people know how hard it is to get developers and sys admins to doc what they have done ! ... there is a brand new shiny tile cache server in Brisbane. http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/10/04/australia-server/ I believe thats a cache server, not a tile server in its own right. So it caches and delivers what already exists on (eg) osm.org. If it could deliver an Aussie view of Australia, that would be great ! That might also be a good way to trial localized styles. That would be good! My point is not to discourage you No, of course not, like I said, we agree on most. I certainly would not want to send any sort of message that I am unhappy with OSM. Far from it! David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:58:26 -0500, Richard Weait wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Chris Barham wrote: some Australian places have changed from cities to towns on; changeset was: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14217241 [1] I've emailed to the editor to ask the source for the change as I believe some are now incorrect. Did the account reply to you in a satisfactory manner? I don't see a correspondent in this thread that I relate to that username porjo. Have the edits in question been reverted? I did receive a response from the user. He was unaware of the Australian wiki guidance page, or the designated cities. He states his criteria was purely population size as he believed a city to require population of ~100k or more. No reversion has been done for the changeset; as a result I have manually re-tagged the Queensland cities, and intend to revisit should we reach a tagging consensus that would require further amendment. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.comwrote: Richard wrote Take a shot at creating rendering rules that fit your use case! :-) I'm with John on this one - especially for the case of Australia. Maybe we need a special renderer for Australia. Just recently I managed to get some new mappers interested in mapping in rural NSW. They have started on the Wyndham area (which was just about completely unmapped, and they are having the same problem as John. I,E when they want to see Wyndham and it's neighbouurs (Candelo and Cathcart) at the same time on a map, OpenStreetMap shows almost nothing since they are too far apart. We really need a smart renderer that determines (for each tile in each zoom level) what are the most significant objects/ways in that tile/zoom and makes sure that they are rendered (even if they happen to be hundred mile long dirt tracks). Also if the major places in the tile are only localities,hamlets or villages then they should be rendered. That way we would not be tempted to elevate a village to a town just to make the map usable. Largely, I think that removing the temptation to elevate a village to a town is an education problem, not a rendering problem. Don't tag for the renderer is part of it and look at this awesome transit map is another part. Back to creating a specialty rendering that is smarter about sparse areas. I don't think that the smart sparse renderer is impossible. In fact, a new feature was discussed on the mapnik list this week, transformation plugins, that may be helpful. Transformation plugins allow you to analyze and transform the data before rendering, so that might just be the place to decide which place= to render at which size / logo / prominence. So if it interests you, have a go at it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Richard wrote So if it interests you, have a go at it. It does interest me and I will have a go at it (eventually). However I have a few more pressing issues (OSMwise). We urgently need to complete the street name reclamation of Australia. To this end I will be mapping Hay and Narrandra in the next two weeks and fixing up Mildura and Renmark. I'll also knock out a few of the suburbs in Adelaide that have lost their street names. Also (and this could be done by an armchair mapper,local or overseas) we need to get all the house addresses for Australia into OSM. I'm also spending a lot of time fixing crazy TIGER roads in th US (I'm having a huge battle with some really crazy stuff near Lake Arrowhead). Once all the crazy TIGER roads are fixed and all the US house addresses are added then and only then will (I believe) Nokia start to use OpenStreetMaps in their mapping app. Then all the others (Apple, Google etc) will have to follow suit. Once all this has happened then I intend to spend a lot of time writing software for the mobile platform to do stuff that I find interesting. Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
I think it might be a mistake to suggest that we don't get to have a say in how (eg) the main osm map is rendered just because we can personally render our own. Firstly, setting up to do that rendering is not trivial, nor is reconfiguring it for a different view. But mainly because we contribute to the map to make it useful for other people. Now, i don't see anyone sponsoring the necessary server and bandwidth capabilities (maybe i am wrong?) here in Oz. So i think we should assume that the 'other people' we want to help will be looking at osm.org or at an app that has been written by someone guided by what they see at osm.org. I agree that putting incorrect data into osm just because that makes it look right is evil. But we do have an obligation to make sure 'our' data is presented so its useful. In this case, if that means redefining terms like city, that's what we need do. We have a similar problem with connecting roads and even how frequently the name appears on a long road. Sigh... Incidentally, the documentation on how to set up a local rendering system is not great, i might do a bit of updating. And, importantly, there does not seem to be any user guide for osm.xml, quite a lot goes on in there ! Should we be documenting our views in the Australian page of the wiki ? David . Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.comwrote: Richard wrote Take a shot at creating rendering rules that fit your use case! :-) I'm with John on this one - especially for the case of Australia. Maybe we need a special renderer for Australia. Just recently I managed to get some new mappers interested in mapping in rural NSW. They have started on the Wyndham area (which was just about completely unmapped, and they are having the same problem as John. I,E when they want to see Wyndham and it's neighbouurs (Candelo and Cathcart) at the same time on a map, OpenStreetMap shows almost nothing since they are too far apart. We really need a smart renderer that determines (for each tile in each zoom level) what are the most significant objects/ways in that tile/zoom and makes sure that they are rendered (even if they happen to be hundred mile long dirt tracks). Also if the major places in the tile are only localities,hamlets or villages then they should be rendered. That way we would not be tempted to elevate a village to a town just to make the map usable. Largely, I think that removing the temptation to elevate a village to a town is an education problem, not a rendering problem. Don't tag for the renderer is part of it and look at this awesome transit map is another part. Back to creating a specialty rendering that is smarter about sparse areas. I don't think that the smart sparse renderer is impossible. In fact, a new feature was discussed on the mapnik list this week, transformation plugins, that may be helpful. Transformation plugins allow you to analyze and transform the data before rendering, so that might just be the place to decide which place= to render at which size / logo / prominence. So if it interests you, have a go at it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: Hi, some Australian places have changed from cities to towns on; changeset was: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14217241 I've emailed to the editor to ask the source for the change as I believe some are now incorrect. Did the account reply to you in a satisfactory manner? I don't see a correspondent in this thread that I relate to that username porjo. Have the edits in question been reverted? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:16 PM, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: Absolutely. When I'm planning a trip, I like to look at OSM maps online. There's nothing more frustrating than seeing a few towns (obvious from the network of streets), but not a town name to be seen. Sure, I can zoom in to see the names, but when I do that, I've got to zoom in so far that I can no longer see the spacial relationship between those few towns (because I can see only one at a time). This is the result of tagging rural Australian towns purely on the basis of population. The principle of not tagging for the renderer can be taken too far. The maps must be useful. Don't obsess over a single renderer. You wouldn't use a circuit diagram to build a bookcase, and you wouldn't instruct your chef with music notation. Make a rendering style that meets your needs. Take a shot at creating rendering rules that fit your use case! :-) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
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. 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. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 12/12/12 23:35, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote: 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. 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. Absolutely. When I'm planning a trip, I like to look at OSM maps online. There's nothing more frustrating than seeing a few towns (obvious from the network of streets), but not a town name to be seen. Sure, I can zoom in to see the names, but when I do that, I've got to zoom in so far that I can no longer see the spacial relationship between those few towns (because I can see only one at a time). This is the result of tagging rural Australian towns purely on the basis of population. The principle of not tagging for the renderer can be taken too far. The maps must be useful. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns- I made Alice Springs a city.
I agree we need to think about the map, not the rules. look at the first map you see when you type OSM into google. Its a map of europe. It shows London, prague, and warsaw but not paris or berlin. Lisbon but not madrid, budapest but not rome. And here, at a slightly different zoom level we get Sydney, Melbourne, Albury and Cooma but not the nations capital - canberra. In fact, Queenbeyan appears before CAnberra. I've just noticed that Queenbeyan also appears before Alice Springs, for goodness sake. In my opinion, if the guidelines generate these counter intuitive maps , then the guidelines are wrong. I have made Alice Springs a city, but feel free to change it back if this violates some rule. We are map makers, not programmers, which means we interpret the physical world through a cultural lense to make a document that helps others. Embrace subjectivity. The number of people living in an area is only one reason a settlement should show up on a map. I would argue one of the lesser reasons, unless the purpoe of that map is to map population density. cheers, adrian. From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 66, Issue 13 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:00:04 + Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest... Today's Topics: 1. (Paul HAYDON) 2. Re: cities changed to towns (Steve Bennett) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:37:43 +1100 From: Paul HAYDON cadmana...@live.com.au To: Talk-AU OSM talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns Message-ID: snt002-w16383afc8c960153517deea8c...@phx.gbl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Hi everyone, Firstly, a qualification:I've not read the Wiki on this subject, so this is simply my opinion without the support of guidelines/rules/etc. I believe, having authored/compiled some detail Magellan maps for eXplorist GPSrs this year, that more important than guidelines or rules that are documented, there needs to be a hierarchy in the data. Obviously, a city in Europe will be much larger than one in Australia, and similarly, ours will be much larger than those in more remote countries. And the size differs, not only in population, but also in geographical area (since population densities also vary). For example, let me just describe the east coast of N.S.W., centred on Sydney: I reckon Sydney, Newcastle, and Wollongong are no-brainers - they're cities. But also, Gosford and Wyong on the Central Coast should be classified the same. Now, while I'm sure such places as Parramatta are also cities (I've not verified this, but I'm pretty sure), from a mapping perspective, Sydney is probably all that is needed. So, on a broad view, you will see Sydney, with Newcastle to the north, and Wollongong to the South, as well as Gosford/Wyong midway between Sydney Newcastle. The next level should then be those centres within the metropolitan areas which warrant attention: in Sydney, such places as Strathfield, Parramatta, Penrith, Chatswood, Hornsby, Hurstville Sutherland (plus, I'm sure there are others). IMHO, keeping sight of the end-use (i.e. a map) is more important than strictly applying a rule based purely on numbers (although, when in doubt, these can be helpful). So places like Parramatta might not be classified as cities when in fact they are, while others in more remote parts of our country might be classified, even though they might not be cities. Any thoughts? Cheers,Paul. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121211/1c467a61/attachment-0001.html -- Message: 2 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:56:37 +1100 From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com To: Alex Sims a...@softgrow.com Cc: talk-au talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns Message-ID: CA+z=q=uUgqFsEr+0_pxv8vtj526oEL9PayPKbe=chkmp4mh...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I would want place=city to refer to an urban populated area of at least 100,000 people as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Values I've taken to fixing errors from Geofabrik OSMI and have changed places to match the schema above. Whilst I find hamlet village grate on me
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 11/12/2012 6:06 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: Ok, but I don't think we should get hung up on the coincidence between the Australian official meaning of city and the tag place=city. (By coincidence, I mean, if we happened to speak some other language, obviously there'd be no official designation of city.) So...what do we want place=city to refer to? I would want place=city to refer to an urban populated area of at least 100,000 people as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Values I've taken to fixing errors from Geofabrik OSMI and have changed places to match the schema above. Whilst I find hamlet village grate on me as words, they are merely code for an object to be mapped. It's only really issue because I speak English (Australian) and the OSM schema was developed in English (United Kingdom) that there is an issue. If we all spoke Finnish or Swahili we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Alex ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Hi I disagree, I believe the greater than 100,000 test is not applicable within Australia. OSM Wiki says a city is: The largest urban settlements in the territory, normally including the national, state and provincial capitals. These are defined by charter or other governmental designation in some territories and are a matter of judgement in others. Should normally have a population of at least 100,000 people and be larger than nearby townsAll of these apply to those places previously mentioned : 1) largest urban settlements in the territory 2) defined by charter 3) larger than nearby towns. The one 'rule' that these places fail is 100,000 inhabitants - however the wiki guide text is prefaced by the word 'normally'. Taken with the Australian tagging rules page that says you may 'promote' regional centres, I think it is fair to tag these as cities. Chas On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Alex Sims a...@softgrow.com wrote: On 11/12/2012 6:06 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: Ok, but I don't think we should get hung up on the coincidence between the Australian official meaning of city and the tag place=city. (By coincidence, I mean, if we happened to speak some other language, obviously there'd be no official designation of city.) So...what do we want place=city to refer to? I would want place=city to refer to an urban populated area of at least 100,000 people as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/** wiki/Key:place#Valueshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Values I've taken to fixing errors from Geofabrik OSMI and have changed places to match the schema above. Whilst I find hamlet village grate on me as words, they are merely code for an object to be mapped. It's only really issue because I speak English (Australian) and the OSM schema was developed in English (United Kingdom) that there is an issue. If we all spoke Finnish or Swahili we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Alex __**_ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- cbar...@pobox.com ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 11/12/2012, at 9:17 AM, Chris Barham wrote: Hi, some Australian places have changed from cities to towns on; changeset was: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14217241 The ones on the changeset that I think should be cities are: NSW: Albury, Bathurst, Broken Hill, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Goulburn, Orange, Port Macquarie, Tamworth, Wagga Wagga Victoria: Mildura There are some that could be classed as cities e.g. Armidale (NSW) is officially a city. (There are probably others that should be cities, that I'm not familiar with.) Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Hi everyone, Firstly, a qualification:I've not read the Wiki on this subject, so this is simply my opinion without the support of guidelines/rules/etc. I believe, having authored/compiled some detail Magellan maps for eXplorist GPSrs this year, that more important than guidelines or rules that are documented, there needs to be a hierarchy in the data. Obviously, a city in Europe will be much larger than one in Australia, and similarly, ours will be much larger than those in more remote countries. And the size differs, not only in population, but also in geographical area (since population densities also vary). For example, let me just describe the east coast of N.S.W., centred on Sydney: I reckon Sydney, Newcastle, and Wollongong are no-brainers - they're cities. But also, Gosford and Wyong on the Central Coast should be classified the same. Now, while I'm sure such places as Parramatta are also cities (I've not verified this, but I'm pretty sure), from a mapping perspective, Sydney is probably all that is needed. So, on a broad view, you will see Sydney, with Newcastle to the north, and Wollongong to the South, as well as Gosford/Wyong midway between Sydney Newcastle. The next level should then be those centres within the metropolitan areas which warrant attention: in Sydney, such places as Strathfield, Parramatta, Penrith, Chatswood, Hornsby, Hurstville Sutherland (plus, I'm sure there are others). IMHO, keeping sight of the end-use (i.e. a map) is more important than strictly applying a rule based purely on numbers (although, when in doubt, these can be helpful). So places like Parramatta might not be classified as cities when in fact they are, while others in more remote parts of our country might be classified, even though they might not be cities. Any thoughts? Cheers,Paul. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
I would want place=city to refer to an urban populated area of at least 100,000 people as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Values I've taken to fixing errors from Geofabrik OSMI and have changed places to match the schema above. Whilst I find hamlet village grate on me as words, they are merely code for an object to be mapped. It's only really issue because I speak English (Australian) and the OSM schema was developed in English (United Kingdom) that there is an issue. If we all spoke Finnish or Swahili we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Ok, well what might be an obvious error to you is correct to someone else. There are many OSM tags that have different meanings in different parts of the world. It would be good to be consistent within Australia, but it's not important whether our meaning precisely matches the meaning in the UK or some other country. Looking at the wiki page you cite, it's clear that those definitions are intended as rules of thumb: Populations of villages vary widely in different territories but will nearly always be less than 10,000 people, often a lot less.; [Cities s]hhould normally have a population of at least 100,000 people and be larger than nearby towns. Normally, in densely populated areas, that is. Applying that cut off in Victoria would lead to only Melbourne and Geelong qualifying, with Bendigo and Ballarat just missing out. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Mind you, this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Victoria,_Australia Tells us that cities need at least 50,000 people, i guess Victoria is special. Seriously, i don't think a hard number only test is very appropriate. David Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I would want place=city to refer to an urban populated area of at least 100,000 people as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Values I've taken to fixing errors from Geofabrik OSMI and have changed places to match the schema above. Whilst I find hamlet village grate on me as words, they are merely code for an object to be mapped. It's only really issue because I speak English (Australian) and the OSM schema was developed in English (United Kingdom) that there is an issue. If we all spoke Finnish or Swahili we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Ok, well what might be an obvious error to you is correct to someone else. There are many OSM tags that have different meanings in different parts of the world. It would be good to be consistent within Australia, but it's not important whether our meaning precisely matches the meaning in the UK or some other country. Looking at the wiki page you cite, it's clear that those definitions are intended as rules of thumb: Populations of villages vary widely in different territories but will nearly always be less than 10,000 people, often a lot less.; [Cities s]hhould normally have a population of at least 100,000 people and be larger than nearby towns. Normally, in densely populated areas, that is. Applying that cut off in Victoria would lead to only Melbourne and Geelong qualifying, with Bendigo and Ballarat just missing out. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Hi Alex, My view on all this is that if a place has officially been designated as a city then we must tag it as such. If it is offically a town then we must tag it as a town etc. If we can't find any official designation then either common sense of maybe a state specific rule could be applied. Anyway, in my neck of the woods Goulburn really MUST revert to a city or we risk alienating all NSW residents and making our map unacceptable to a large number of potential users. Cheers Nick PS - Goulburn was officially declared a city *twice* because there was some confusion about it the first time! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 12/12/2012 2:54 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: My view on all this is that if a place has officially been designated as a city then we must tag it as such. If it is offically a town then we must tag it as a town etc. If we can't find any official designation then either common sense of maybe a state specific rule could be applied. Anyway, in my neck of the woods Goulburn really MUST revert to a city or we risk alienating all NSW residents and making our map unacceptable to a large number of potential users. I had a look at cities by population from http://www.statoids.com/yau.html. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place defines city These are defined by charter or other governmental designation in some territories and are a matter of judgement in others. Should normally have a population of at least 100,000 people and be larger than nearby towns. The only real issue where there might be a conflict with OSMI is Charters Towers with a population of 8893 which is well below 100,000. So it might be the Australian special case. There are three rural cities with population less than 10,000 in SA, Goyder, Wakefield and Light but they are regional names, not those of their towns (Burra, Balaklava and Kapunda). As to towns often with a population of 10,000 people and good range of local facilities including schools, medical facilities etc and traditionally a market. In areas of low population towns may have significantly lower populations. and the smallest Australian one is Jabiru NT with 1696. So maybe as a way forward for tagging Australia Population 100,000 - City 100,000 Population 10,000 - Town unless designated as a city 10,000 Population 1,000 - Village unless designated as Town or Charters Tower which is designated a city 1,000 Population - Hamlet That should keep locals happy and still be globally consistent? Alex ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Wikipedia has some different information (with references) that are considerably different. Since the start of the 20th century, local government acts in each state specify the criteria and thresholds and applications are made to the Governors of the Australian stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governors_of_the_Australian_states. Population thresholds currently exist under Local government acts in most states including New South Waleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales (*1919* - 25,000); South Australia (22,000); Western Australia (30,000) and Tasmania (10,000). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City#Australia On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Alex Sims a...@softgrow.com wrote: On 12/12/2012 2:54 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: My view on all this is that if a place has officially been designated as a city then we must tag it as such. If it is offically a town then we must tag it as a town etc. If we can't find any official designation then either common sense of maybe a state specific rule could be applied. Anyway, in my neck of the woods Goulburn really MUST revert to a city or we risk alienating all NSW residents and making our map unacceptable to a large number of potential users. I had a look at cities by population from http://www.statoids.com/yau.** html http://www.statoids.com/yau.html. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Key:placehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:placedefines city These are defined by charter or other governmental designation in some territories and are a matter of judgement in others. Should normally have a population of at least 100,000 people and be larger than nearby towns. The only real issue where there might be a conflict with OSMI is Charters Towers with a population of 8893 which is well below 100,000. So it might be the Australian special case. There are three rural cities with population less than 10,000 in SA, Goyder, Wakefield and Light but they are regional names, not those of their towns (Burra, Balaklava and Kapunda). As to towns often with a population of 10,000 people and good range of local facilities including schools, medical facilities etc and traditionally a market. In areas of low population towns may have significantly lower populations. and the smallest Australian one is Jabiru NT with 1696. So maybe as a way forward for tagging Australia Population 100,000 - City 100,000 Population 10,000 - Town unless designated as a city 10,000 Population 1,000 - Village unless designated as Town or Charters Tower which is designated a city 1,000 Population - Hamlet That should keep locals happy and still be globally consistent? Alex __**_ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] cities changed to towns
Hi, some Australian places have changed from cities to towns on; changeset was: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14217241 I've emailed to the editor to ask the source for the change as I believe some are now incorrect. I really do think Gympie, Maryborough, Warwick and Charters Towers are cities, and should have remained tagged as such. Are there others, in other states, within this changeset that should have stayed as is? Wikipedia is not the best reference material I know, but they have the Qld ones I mentioned as cities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia Additionally, I think some of the others should to be tagged cities, even if not officially, under the Aus tagging guidelines at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#City.2C_Town_or_Village.3F So looking at the tagging guidelines, haven't we agreed to tag by population size or significance in remote areas? Here is a populated list of places by population for Qld that could be useful any discussion: http://www.bonzle.com/c/a?a=fsc=lgst=3cmd=sp Cheers, chas ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
Hi Chris, Interesting topic - sadly the wiki just acknowledges the lack of an answer. My take is that the distinction between village/town/city really only matters for the purpose of rendering anyway - any more sophisticated use of the data is going to use population figures to make its own decision about how to classify towns. So I think it's ok to be a bit loose and subjective with our definitions. Hard for me to comment on the QLD ones. The Victorian ones are Warrnambool, Sale and Mildura. W and M definitely sense as cities than towns. They're major regional centres, and much more significant than towns nearby. Sale is more lineball (although Wikipedia counts it) - nearby Bairnsdale should be a city though. You see the effect it has on Mapnik here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.74lon=145.31zoom=8layers=M It's definitely wrong having Sale show up at that zoom but not Bairnsdale. But the more I look at the Wikipedia list (counting 18 cities outside Melbourne), the more I think it would make sense to mark all of those as city. None of them seem out of place subjectively to me. I'm not clear on where the list on Wikipedia was derived from though. If you compare the list by population against the ones designated city, some omissions are Echuca, Warragul, Bacchus Marsh, Ocean Grove-Barwon Heads. Not a big deal though. Steve On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: Hi, some Australian places have changed from cities to towns on; changeset was: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14217241 I've emailed to the editor to ask the source for the change as I believe some are now incorrect. I really do think Gympie, Maryborough, Warwick and Charters Towers are cities, and should have remained tagged as such. Are there others, in other states, within this changeset that should have stayed as is? Wikipedia is not the best reference material I know, but they have the Qld ones I mentioned as cities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia Additionally, I think some of the others should to be tagged cities, even if not officially, under the Aus tagging guidelines at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#City.2C_Town_or_Village.3F So looking at the tagging guidelines, haven't we agreed to tag by population size or significance in remote areas? Here is a populated list of places by population for Qld that could be useful any discussion: http://www.bonzle.com/c/a?a=fsc=lgst=3cmd=sp Cheers, chas ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
According to NSW Government Gazette 1885, vol. I. NSW Government. 1885-03-20 Goulburn was officially proclaimed a City on 20 March 1885 This user has changed Goulburn from a city to a town amazing ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 11/12/12 09:17, Chris Barham wrote: I really do think Gympie, Maryborough, Warwick and Charters Towers are cities, and should have remained tagged as such. Are there others, in other states, within this changeset that should have stayed as is? I remember the fact that Warwick officially became a city sometime in the early to mid 70s. I was there at the time. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 11/12/12 13:26, John Henderson wrote: On 11/12/12 09:17, Chris Barham wrote: I really do think Gympie, Maryborough, Warwick and Charters Towers are cities, and should have remained tagged as such. Are there others, in other states, within this changeset that should have stayed as is? I remember the fact that Warwick officially became a city sometime in the early to mid 70s. I was there at the time. John Checking the state archives and it looks like it happened in :- Warwick - April 1936 Charters Towers - April 1909 Gympie - January 1905 Maryborough - January 1905 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
On 11/12/12 15:02, Michael James wrote: Warwick - April 1936 Thanks - it must have been an anniversary celebration that I remember from the mid 70s. They certainly made a fuss about being a city. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
