Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Lester Caine]

On 14/09/15 11:11, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Broxbourne, Wormley and Turnford don't really have significant centres
> and historically would likely have been considered villages. Broxbourne
> is now a town in wikipedia with a population of over 13 thousand while
> the other two are still listed as villages with a combined population of
> around 8 thousand. Much of that is 20th century dormitory for London though.

Again on IOP
'Broxbourne and Hoddesdon South' gets a population figure of 9065 and
I'm seeing three other Hoddesdon entries, but the whole area is covered
by 'Broxbourne' in that data ... rather than Hoddesdon.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Tom Hughes]

On 14/09/15 11:24, Lester Caine wrote:

On 14/09/15 11:11, Tom Hughes wrote:

Broxbourne, Wormley and Turnford don't really have significant centres
and historically would likely have been considered villages. Broxbourne
is now a town in wikipedia with a population of over 13 thousand while
the other two are still listed as villages with a combined population of
around 8 thousand. Much of that is 20th century dormitory for London though.


Again on IOP
'Broxbourne and Hoddesdon South' gets a population figure of 9065 and
I'm seeing three other Hoddesdon entries, but the whole area is covered
by 'Broxbourne' in that data ... rather than Hoddesdon.


Yes because they're all in the Borough of Broxbourne which is the 
district council area formed by merging the Cheshunt and Hoddesdon Urban 
Districts in the 1974 reorg.


Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[SK53]

Not strictly speaking true: I can instantly think of a counter example
Market Harborough which is clearly a town with a charter from the 13th
century, but ecclesiastically established as a chapel-at-ease to Great
Bowden (see Hosking (1955), *The Making of the English Landscape*, p.
227-228). Railway towns may provide other, more recent examples, the one I
can think of are rather further afield: Rotkreuz
near Luzern (part of Risch,
until 2007 when civil parish renamed).

All this discussion highlights is that it is nigh-on impossible to define
simple criteria for choosing which value to use for the place key. 11 years
of experience in OSM shows that using a single criterion, such as
population, is not sensible.

On the other hand finding a way to access population figures to places for
data consumers is useful. Directly adding population values may work in
Britain where population change is relatively slow, so slowly outdated data
is still useful, but is risky in other parts of the world. At the very
lease also add a link to wikipedia/wikidata as well, which ultimately
should obviate having to maintain population values

Jerry

On 14 September 2015 at 08:53, Mark Goodge  wrote:

> On 14/09/2015 00:41, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 14/09/15 00:16, Lester Caine wrote:
>>
>> The OSM wiki defines 'hamlet' as less than 100-200 people, but village
>>> supposedly starts at 1000 up to 1 with the proviso that it depends
>>> on the country. Ideally the two would perhaps meet :) We are perhaps
>>> looking at a population of around 8000 for a town designation in the UK,
>>> but anything down to 100 is still classified as a village by the ONS.
>>> What are actually missing from the OSN data are ANY hamlets despite
>>> their claiming to include them.
>>>
>>
>> Please don't try and draw bright lines based on population, and
>> certainly don't try and mass edit things based on that. It's much more
>> subjective than that.
>>
>> Nobody would ever have described the place where I grew up as anything
>> other than a town, but we always used to reckon on a population of
>> around 3000 people (wikipedia says 5627 as of the 2011 census) and
>> certainly 8000 sounds very high to me.
>>
>
> Historically, the distinction between a hamlet, a village and a town was
> based on ecclesiastical parishes. A village was a populated area comprising
> a parish of its own, with one parish church. A town was a contiguous
> populated area comprising multiple ecclesiastical parishes, while a hamlet
> was a populated area too small to have its own parish (and thus being
> contained within another one, either a village parish or an outlying area
> of a town parish).
>
> This official distinction has been lost over the years with multiple
> phases of local government reorganisation, but it still provides a good
> rule of thumb.
>
> In England and Wales, a civil parish council can choose to style itself a
> town council if it wishes. The majority of those which have done so are
> those which, prior to the Local Government Act 1972, would have been a
> Municipal Borough (eg, Evesham or Lewes) and which meet the historical
> definition of a town, but by no means all of them fall into this category.
>
> What that means is that population alone is a no more than a rough guide
> to the likely status of a town or village, at least in England and Wales.
> There's a significant overlap between the largest villages and the smallest
> towns.
>
> Mark
> --
> http://www.markgoodge.com
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Lester Caine]

On 14/09/15 13:02, SK53 wrote:
> On the other hand finding a way to access population figures to places
> for data consumers is useful. Directly adding population values may work
> in Britain where population change is relatively slow, so slowly
> outdated data is still useful, but is risky in other parts of the world.
> At the very lease also add a link to wikipedia/wikidata as well, which
> ultimately should obviate having to maintain population values

That is precisely where I started ;)
Or rather adding the wikipedia link ...

The problem is that even coverage in wikipedia is far from complete so
one finds erratic quality of information. Additionally wikidata is still
at an early stage and does not have the bulk of the information already
in wikipedia, so someone has to go through and change all the
information blocks around or add missing ones where needed :(

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Richard Fairhurst]

Richard Symonds wrote:
> Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based 
> on definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population 
> size.

That's what the population= tag is for. :)

Richard




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Village-Hamlet-and-populations-tp5854643p5854688.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Richard Symonds]

I see your problem... could you tell me how exactly you define the
hierarchy at the moment? Is it ad-hoc, with various rules in different
areas etc?

Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on
definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population size. If
this gives odd results, then perhaps you could have a "booster value" if
the town is used as a post town or a seat of local government (for example).

I worry that trying to define terms like "village" or "town" is doomed to
failure, because very few will agree on what it means, no matter how much
we try ;-)


Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 14 September 2015 at 15:08, Lester Caine  wrote:

> On 14/09/15 14:23, Richard Symonds wrote:
> > Is there any reason that a place can't be both?
> > eg.
> > "defines self as=town"
> > "defines self as=village"
> > "defined by X as village"
> >
> > Or the like?
>
> The obvious answer is that unless one adds some sort of filter it will
> get counted twice? Once as a town and once as a village. There should
> only be one place entry in OSM or so the
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place?uselang=en-GB says. I'm not
> sure but adding a second place tag should not work I think. Place is
> part of the hierarchy of a location on OSM, so having it appear as both
> a town and village would be confusing on searches.
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Lester Caine]

On 14/09/15 15:18, Richard Symonds wrote:
> Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on
> definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population size.
> If this gives odd results, then perhaps you could have a "booster value"
> if the town is used as a post town or a seat of local government (for
> example).

Not going to happen.

Wish list!

On OSM some places have all their is_in: tags for parish, ward, county.
Some rely on having enclosing boundaries to provide that information,
and some have nothing where many of the boundaries are still missing.

For the UK we have the whole hierarchy from the ONS data so there is no
need to create it, we simply need an agreed method to use it. We could
create all the is_in: tags from the data so we can search and find all
of x in y, or we could pass that off to a third party such as wikidata
where we just add a link to the whole gamut of what can be added virtual
data wise.

Currently all the wikipedia links are being added but I think that to
use wikidata efficiently one has to use the designated ID rather than
the name? Since Facebook insist on using the names as defined by
wikipedia this is where my problem originally arose since they only add
county when wikipedia do so often you have no idea which is the right
place to use. What is used as a link has other consequences!

It does still not get around needing the boundaries IN OSM so one can
click anywhere in an area and identify which of multiple zones it is
actually in. Adding this data to the places does not fill that hole :(

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Colin Smale]

 

Hi Lester, can you provide a link to the ONS data you are referring to? 

On 2015-09-14 16:39, Lester Caine wrote: 

> On 14/09/15 15:18, Richard Symonds wrote: 
> 
>> Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on
>> definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population size.
>> If this gives odd results, then perhaps you could have a "booster value"
>> if the town is used as a post town or a seat of local government (for
>> example).
> 
> Not going to happen.
> 
> Wish list!
> 
> On OSM some places have all their is_in: tags for parish, ward, county.
> Some rely on having enclosing boundaries to provide that information,
> and some have nothing where many of the boundaries are still missing.
> 
> For the UK we have the whole hierarchy from the ONS data so there is no
> need to create it, we simply need an agreed method to use it. We could
> create all the is_in: tags from the data so we can search and find all
> of x in y, or we could pass that off to a third party such as wikidata
> where we just add a link to the whole gamut of what can be added virtual
> data wise.
> 
> Currently all the wikipedia links are being added but I think that to
> use wikidata efficiently one has to use the designated ID rather than
> the name? Since Facebook insist on using the names as defined by
> wikipedia this is where my problem originally arose since they only add
> county when wikipedia do so often you have no idea which is the right
> place to use. What is used as a link has other consequences!
> 
> It does still not get around needing the boundaries IN OSM so one can
> click anywhere in an area and identify which of multiple zones it is
> actually in. Adding this data to the places does not fill that hole :(
 ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Richard Symonds]

Is there any reason that a place can't be both?
eg.
"defines self as=town"
"defines self as=village"
"defined by X as village"

Or the like?

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 14 September 2015 at 14:20, Lester Caine  wrote:

> On 14/09/15 13:02, SK53 wrote:
> > On the other hand finding a way to access population figures to places
> > for data consumers is useful. Directly adding population values may work
> > in Britain where population change is relatively slow, so slowly
> > outdated data is still useful, but is risky in other parts of the world.
> > At the very lease also add a link to wikipedia/wikidata as well, which
> > ultimately should obviate having to maintain population values
>
> That is precisely where I started ;)
> Or rather adding the wikipedia link ...
>
> The problem is that even coverage in wikipedia is far from complete so
> one finds erratic quality of information. Additionally wikidata is still
> at an early stage and does not have the bulk of the information already
> in wikipedia, so someone has to go through and change all the
> information blocks around or add missing ones where needed :(
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Richard Symonds]

Well, the beauty is that you could use just those definitions instead:
"defined by PC as village"
"defined by census as town"
"defined by Local Government Act as parish"

etc etc. Wikidata is very good at keeping track of these, and then the
reader can simply select whose definition they want to use!

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 14 September 2015 at 14:52, Colin Smale  wrote:

>
>
>
> No reason whatsoever but how do you determine what a place calls
> itself? What the Parish Council puts on the "village" sign -> according to
> the PC. What the population maps to according to some algorithm ->
> according to the author of the algorithm.
>
> On 2015-09-14 15:23, Richard Symonds wrote:
>
> Is there any reason that a place can't be both?
> eg.
> "defines self as=town"
> "defines self as=village"
> "defined by X as village"
>
> Or the like?
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
>
> On 14 September 2015 at 14:20, Lester Caine  wrote:
>
>> On 14/09/15 13:02, SK53 wrote:
>> > On the other hand finding a way to access population figures to places
>> > for data consumers is useful. Directly adding population values may work
>> > in Britain where population change is relatively slow, so slowly
>> > outdated data is still useful, but is risky in other parts of the world.
>> > At the very lease also add a link to wikipedia/wikidata as well, which
>> > ultimately should obviate having to maintain population values
>>
>> That is precisely where I started ;)
>> Or rather adding the wikipedia link ...
>>
>> The problem is that even coverage in wikipedia is far from complete so
>> one finds erratic quality of information. Additionally wikidata is still
>> at an early stage and does not have the bulk of the information already
>> in wikipedia, so someone has to go through and change all the
>> information blocks around or add missing ones where needed :(
>>
>> --
>> Lester Caine - G8HFL
>> -
>> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
>> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
>> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
>> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
>> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] useless survey?

[malenki]

Since the British forum seems little frequented compared to the British
ML I publish what I wrote there¹ here once again with tiny enhancements.

This summer I hiked Snowdonia National Park from Machynlleth to Conwy.
Doing so I collected about 843 waypoints in Wales and 140 in the Restof
GB. As usual I uploaded my logs to OSM and quite an amount of the
pictures to Mapillary (the rest will follow soon). I also started
adding and enhancing highways and POI to OSM.
Now user Dyserth had added some data I could not verify in reality.
Although this holidays I wanted to do a little less on OSM compared to
last year (which wouldn't be hard to achieve :)²) I could not resist to
capture three gems of highway=track, tracktype=grade1 like this:
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/QkMEYGK64gxtupnGWfHwXA/photo
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244474174/history

Also the names "Ancient Trackway" and "Old Coach Road" on a lot of
different ways caught my eye. I changed these and a several other ways
to what I believed what I found and walked and also asked the previous
mapper for his sources. After I found that he reverted one of my
changesets and edited some more data to IMHO not matching reality I
wrote a second message which he replied to rather unhelpful and not too
friendly. The messages I sent can be found here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33841330

Just as I wrote the posting for the forums Dyserth commented another
changeset and edited the data in a way which confirms my opinion to
skip mapping Wales: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34006163
In short: After I split a way its new way segments shouldn't have the
name which was there before I even touched it.

This makes me think twice if I should care to map in Wales anymore
since it seems Dyserth
* interprets reality (if he knows it at all) to his liking
* doesn't want to name his sources neither in changeset comments nor on
  request
* seems to think he needs to protect "his data" and thus will change
  (not only my) contributions back to what he thinks is best. 

I can think of better ways to contribute to OSM than to add stuff which
I can be certain will not be there for long.
By the way: For mapping only 1,5 years Dyserth has made an impressive
amount of edits. But I doubt that he collected all the data by ground
survey nor has – regarding what I saw on the ground and mapped –
reliable sources.

Best Regards
Thomas

¹ http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=540545#p540545
² http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/malenki/diary/23935



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Chris Hill]

On 14/09/15 15:18, Richard Symonds wrote:
I see your problem... could you tell me how exactly you define the 
hierarchy at the moment? Is it ad-hoc, with various rules in different 
areas etc?


Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on 
definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population size. 
If this gives odd results, then perhaps you could have a "booster 
value" if the town is used as a post town or a seat of local 
government (for example).


I worry that trying to define terms like "village" or "town" is doomed 
to failure, because very few will agree on what it means, no matter 
how much we try ;-)



There is no hierarchy. For any rules you could chose it would be easy to 
find counter examples, probably within a few tens miles of where any of 
us live. UK places are a muddle and all the nicer for being so. 
Inventing a hierarchy to satisfy a short-sighted computer model would be 
bonkers. The very worst rule is population based. A place is a hamlet / 
village / town because the people who live there believe that is what it 
is. Rendering place names when space is tight and hence not showing 
some, based on population, has some merit. A village is a village 
because it is a village. If you can't tell that for yourself then get a 
local to tell you and in the process spread the word about OSM and 
surveying.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Colin Smale]

 

No reason whatsoever but how do you determine what a place calls
itself? What the Parish Council puts on the "village" sign -> according
to the PC. What the population maps to according to some algorithm ->
according to the author of the algorithm. 

On 2015-09-14 15:23, Richard Symonds wrote: 

> Is there any reason that a place can't be both? 
> eg. 
> "defines self as=town" 
> "defines self as=village" 
> "defined by X as village" 
> 
> Or the like? 
> 
> Richard Symonds 
> Wikimedia UK 
> 0207 065 0992 
> 
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and 
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered 
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. 
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia 
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who 
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). 
> 
> WIKIMEDIA UK IS AN INDEPENDENT NON-PROFIT CHARITY WITH NO LEGAL CONTROL OVER 
> WIKIPEDIA NOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTENTS. 
> 
> On 14 September 2015 at 14:20, Lester Caine  wrote:
> 
>> On 14/09/15 13:02, SK53 wrote:
>>> On the other hand finding a way to access population figures to places
>>> for data consumers is useful. Directly adding population values may work
>>> in Britain where population change is relatively slow, so slowly
>>> outdated data is still useful, but is risky in other parts of the world.
>>> At the very lease also add a link to wikipedia/wikidata as well, which
>>> ultimately should obviate having to maintain population values
>> 
>> That is precisely where I started ;)
>> Or rather adding the wikipedia link ...
>> 
>> The problem is that even coverage in wikipedia is far from complete so
>> one finds erratic quality of information. Additionally wikidata is still
>> at an early stage and does not have the bulk of the information already
>> in wikipedia, so someone has to go through and change all the
>> information blocks around or add missing ones where needed :(
>> 
>> --
>> Lester Caine - G8HFL
>> -
>> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
>> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
>> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
>> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
>> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Lester Caine]

On 14/09/15 14:23, Richard Symonds wrote:
> Is there any reason that a place can't be both?
> eg.
> "defines self as=town"
> "defines self as=village"
> "defined by X as village"
> 
> Or the like?

The obvious answer is that unless one adds some sort of filter it will
get counted twice? Once as a town and once as a village. There should
only be one place entry in OSM or so the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place?uselang=en-GB says. I'm not
sure but adding a second place tag should not work I think. Place is
part of the hierarchy of a location on OSM, so having it appear as both
a town and village would be confusing on searches.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Post Boxes no longer present

[SK53]

This is really a question for Robert, but I think it might be of more
general interest.

I surveyed a fair bit of the town centre of Stockport on Saturday morning &
have just been checking against Post Hoc
 to see if I
missed any possible postboxes so that I could recheck my photos.

In doing so I came across a couple of post boxes outside Carphone
Warehouse/Halifax in Merseyway Shopping Centre which no longer exist (SK1
408  & SK1 409). They are visible in this Geograph image
 taken in April 2014. The area
has obviously been re-modelled since then: including a big hole cut out so
one can see the Mersey. Bollards & other street furniture have changed, and
in the approximate location of the post boxes there is now a K6 telephone
kiosk (the one visible in the geograph photo having gone).

I have no plans to add disappeared post boxes to OSM, so wanted to know is
there any other way to flag up that these have gone, so as to simplify
hunting down ones which are truly missing?

Jerry
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Lester Caine]

On 14/09/15 15:47, Colin Smale wrote:
> Hi Lester, can you provide a link to the ONS data you are referring to?

Main index
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/index.html

Useful one for now ...
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/other/index-of-place-names--ipn-/index.html


https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/Docs/Products/Index_of_Place_Names_2012_(E+W).zip

Prior to 2011 it was IOP, but seems it's now IPN ... It's supplied as an
Access database, but I just dumped it as a CVS and am looking to update
my http://enquirysolve.co.uk/wiki/NLPG+Data software to use the new
coding format.

The various boundaries are also available complete with updates since 2012

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] (no subject)

[Manfred A. Reiter]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 268, is now available online in
English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the
openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu Enjoy! weeklyOSM is brought to
you by ... https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM

-- 
## Manfred Reiter - -
## www.weeklyOSM.eu
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Mark Goodge]

On 14/09/2015 00:41, Tom Hughes wrote:

On 14/09/15 00:16, Lester Caine wrote:


The OSM wiki defines 'hamlet' as less than 100-200 people, but village
supposedly starts at 1000 up to 1 with the proviso that it depends
on the country. Ideally the two would perhaps meet :) We are perhaps
looking at a population of around 8000 for a town designation in the UK,
but anything down to 100 is still classified as a village by the ONS.
What are actually missing from the OSN data are ANY hamlets despite
their claiming to include them.


Please don't try and draw bright lines based on population, and
certainly don't try and mass edit things based on that. It's much more
subjective than that.

Nobody would ever have described the place where I grew up as anything
other than a town, but we always used to reckon on a population of
around 3000 people (wikipedia says 5627 as of the 2011 census) and
certainly 8000 sounds very high to me.


Historically, the distinction between a hamlet, a village and a town was 
based on ecclesiastical parishes. A village was a populated area 
comprising a parish of its own, with one parish church. A town was a 
contiguous populated area comprising multiple ecclesiastical parishes, 
while a hamlet was a populated area too small to have its own parish 
(and thus being contained within another one, either a village parish or 
an outlying area of a town parish).


This official distinction has been lost over the years with multiple 
phases of local government reorganisation, but it still provides a good 
rule of thumb.


In England and Wales, a civil parish council can choose to style itself 
a town council if it wishes. The majority of those which have done so 
are those which, prior to the Local Government Act 1972, would have been 
a Municipal Borough (eg, Evesham or Lewes) and which meet the historical 
definition of a town, but by no means all of them fall into this category.


What that means is that population alone is a no more than a rough guide 
to the likely status of a town or village, at least in England and 
Wales. There's a significant overlap between the largest villages and 
the smallest towns.


Mark
--
http://www.markgoodge.com

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Post Boxes no longer present

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 14 September 2015 at 16:02, SK53  wrote:
> I surveyed a fair bit of the town centre of Stockport on Saturday morning &
> have just been checking against Post Hoc to see if I missed any possible
> postboxes so that I could recheck my photos.
>
> In doing so I came across a couple of post boxes outside Carphone
> Warehouse/Halifax in Merseyway Shopping Centre which no longer exist (SK1
> 408  & SK1 409). They are visible in this Geograph image taken in April
> 2014. The area has obviously been re-modelled since then: including a big
> hole cut out so one can see the Mersey. Bollards & other street furniture
> have changed, and in the approximate location of the post boxes there is now
> a K6 telephone kiosk (the one visible in the geograph photo having gone).
>
> I have no plans to add disappeared post boxes to OSM, so wanted to know is
> there any other way to flag up that these have gone, so as to simplify
> hunting down ones which are truly missing?

Yes, there is a way for my tools to be told that a box on Royal Mail's
list is no longer in existence / use. They then come out as grey
markers on the district maps (e.g.
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postboxes/progress/IP/IP24/ ) and should
be omitted from any reports of missing boxes.

However, there's no public interface to allow people to add the
"missing" flag themselves, but if you send me the details, I can do it
manually. If there's lots of demand (i.e. I get too many requests to
deal with manually) then I'll have a look at setting up an interface
that people can use to mark the boxes themselves. The best way to
contact me for this, is via my OSM use profile:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Robert%20Whittaker

Since the Royal Mail locations are not always correct, I'd like to
those requesting boxes to be marked to have evidence (such as what you
posted above) that the box definitely used to be present, so we can be
sure that it's not always been in alternative location. Also, with
boxes like the ones described above, is there a chance that the box
has been moved elsewhere, and the box number lives on at a new
location?

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] meetup edinburgh SOTMS 2015

[Bob]

Anyone interested in State of the map Scotland 2015 please meet at the 
guildford arms from 7pm

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Edinburgh#Social_Events

all the best bob



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Tom Hughes]

On 14/09/15 08:53, Mark Goodge wrote:


Historically, the distinction between a hamlet, a village and a town was
based on ecclesiastical parishes. A village was a populated area
comprising a parish of its own, with one parish church. A town was a
contiguous populated area comprising multiple ecclesiastical parishes,
while a hamlet was a populated area too small to have its own parish
(and thus being contained within another one, either a village parish or
an outlying area of a town parish).


I'm not sure I believe that with regard to towns at least.

Many of the classic "market towns" would only have been a single parish.

To go back to the example of the town where I grew up, namely 
Wotton-under-Edge in Gloucestershire. That is a single parish and has a 
current population of 5627 according to wikipedia, which also points out 
that it had a municipal corporation until 1886 when it was abolished 
following the Municipal Corporations Act of 1883. It now has a town council.


Certainly it has had a charter for a market for over 750 years and seems 
to be consistently described as a town in historical sources such as 
those at http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/11480.


Hell, try http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/1009 where I now live 
which wasn't even a parish in it's own right until 1844 but was almost 
certainly considered a town before that, as a coaching stop on the main 
road from London to Cambridge.


Until 1844 it was split between the parishes of Broxbourne and Great 
Amwell, neither of which has a significant high street, while it has has 
a market charter wince 1253 and has a high street which clearly dates 
back some centuries.


Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Lester Caine]

On 14/09/15 08:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Historically, the distinction between a hamlet, a village and a town was
> based on ecclesiastical parishes. A village was a populated area
> comprising a parish of its own, with one parish church. A town was a
> contiguous populated area comprising multiple ecclesiastical parishes,
> while a hamlet was a populated area too small to have its own parish
> (and thus being contained within another one, either a village parish or
> an outlying area of a town parish).

What also muddies this picture is the closure and combination of parish
churches while retaining the political distinction.

> This official distinction has been lost over the years with multiple
> phases of local government reorganisation, but it still provides a good
> rule of thumb.
> 
> In England and Wales, a civil parish council can choose to style itself
> a town council if it wishes. The majority of those which have done so
> are those which, prior to the Local Government Act 1972, would have been
> a Municipal Borough (eg, Evesham or Lewes) and which meet the historical
> definition of a town, but by no means all of them fall into this category.

The exceptions to the rule come to mind.

> What that means is that population alone is a no more than a rough guide
> to the likely status of a town or village, at least in England and
> Wales. There's a significant overlap between the largest villages and
> the smallest towns.

In the first instance it is what the local preference is. Broadway is
likely to remain a 'Cotswold Village' and is tagged as such on OSM, but
has an identity crisis on wikipedia.

The missing piece of the jigsaw is around 500 people live in the parish,
but not in Broadway itself. Our own enclave is probably one unnamed
'hamlet', and I think there are potentially another couple, but I think
what is missing is the outline of what ONS classify as the 'built up
area' of Broadway ...
And the boundaries of the parishes in Gloucestershire are missing as
well ... another one for the todo list :(

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Lester Caine]

On 14/09/15 09:51, Tom Hughes wrote:
> 
> To go back to the example of the town where I grew up, namely
> Wotton-under-Edge in Gloucestershire. That is a single parish and has a
> current population of 5627 according to wikipedia, which also points out
> that it had a municipal corporation until 1886 when it was abolished
> following the Municipal Corporations Act of 1883. It now has a town
> council.

On IOP Wotton-under-Edge is a parish with an identical built up area, so
the population figures match for both entities.

> Hell, try http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/1009 where I now live
> which wasn't even a parish in it's own right until 1844 but was almost
> certainly considered a town before that, as a coaching stop on the main
> road from London to Cambridge.

Hoddesdon seems to have several entries on IOP and certainly a
substantial population, and would exceed the 1 figure on the wiki
guide. The simple fact is that the inclusion of population on the wiki
page would seem to be something of a red herring, although for other
countries one may need that guide? It would seem that my fingure in air
8000 may be better nearer 3000 although at the end of the day the local
comunity my well call themselves a town or a village based on choice
rather than size.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Colin Smale]

 

Some civil parishes are even cities (I am thinking of Salisbury for
example). And some cities don't have a council of their own (e.g. Bath).


So it is all dependent on how you look at it. Current population,
historical status, government/democratic decisions... 

On 2015-09-14 09:53, Mark Goodge wrote: 

> On 14/09/2015 00:41, Tom Hughes wrote: On 14/09/15 00:16, Lester Caine wrote:
> 
> The OSM wiki defines 'hamlet' as less than 100-200 people, but village
> supposedly starts at 1000 up to 1 with the proviso that it depends
> on the country. Ideally the two would perhaps meet :) We are perhaps
> looking at a population of around 8000 for a town designation in the UK,
> but anything down to 100 is still classified as a village by the ONS.
> What are actually missing from the OSN data are ANY hamlets despite
> their claiming to include them. 
> Please don't try and draw bright lines based on population, and
> certainly don't try and mass edit things based on that. It's much more
> subjective than that.
> 
> Nobody would ever have described the place where I grew up as anything
> other than a town, but we always used to reckon on a population of
> around 3000 people (wikipedia says 5627 as of the 2011 census) and
> certainly 8000 sounds very high to me.

Historically, the distinction between a hamlet, a village and a town was
based on ecclesiastical parishes. A village was a populated area
comprising a parish of its own, with one parish church. A town was a
contiguous populated area comprising multiple ecclesiastical parishes,
while a hamlet was a populated area too small to have its own parish
(and thus being contained within another one, either a village parish or
an outlying area of a town parish).

This official distinction has been lost over the years with multiple
phases of local government reorganisation, but it still provides a good
rule of thumb.

In England and Wales, a civil parish council can choose to style itself
a town council if it wishes. The majority of those which have done so
are those which, prior to the Local Government Act 1972, would have been
a Municipal Borough (eg, Evesham or Lewes) and which meet the historical
definition of a town, but by no means all of them fall into this
category.

What that means is that population alone is a no more than a rough guide
to the likely status of a town or village, at least in England and
Wales. There's a significant overlap between the largest villages and
the smallest towns.

Mark ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Tom Hughes]

On 14/09/15 10:39, Lester Caine wrote:

On 14/09/15 09:51, Tom Hughes wrote:


Hell, try http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/1009 where I now live
which wasn't even a parish in it's own right until 1844 but was almost
certainly considered a town before that, as a coaching stop on the main
road from London to Cambridge.


Hoddesdon seems to have several entries on IOP and certainly a
substantial population, and would exceed the 1 figure on the wiki
guide. The simple fact is that the inclusion of population on the wiki
page would seem to be something of a red herring, although for other
countries one may need that guide? It would seem that my fingure in air
8000 may be better nearer 3000 although at the end of the day the local
comunity my well call themselves a town or a village based on choice
rather than size.


Oh I think there can be no dispute these days. It even meets the two 
parishes rule now. The border to the south can be a bit hazy as all the 
towns in the Lee Valley run together.


It's actually quite an interesting example because heading south down 
the valley you have Hoddesdon, Broxbourne, Wormley, Turnford, Cheshunt 
and Waltham Cross/Waltham Abbey all of which run together.


Historically I think there is little question that Hoddesdon and Waltham 
Cross would be considered towns. Cheshunt has a clear centre and a large 
population though I'm not sure how old the centre is.


Broxbourne, Wormley and Turnford don't really have significant centres 
and historically would likely have been considered villages. Broxbourne 
is now a town in wikipedia with a population of over 13 thousand while 
the other two are still listed as villages with a combined population of 
around 8 thousand. Much of that is 20th century dormitory for London though.


Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb