Re: [Talk-in] Classification of Indian places

[Yogesh K S]

On 08/27/2016 09:45 AM, Arun Ganesh wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Devdatta Tengshe  > wrote:
>
> This link gives the criteria:
>
> 
> http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/kerala/13-concept-34.pdf
> 
> 
>
> For a town, the population criteria is quite small. To be called a
> town, it should meet all the following criteria:
> 1)Population exceeds 5,000
> 2)At least 75% of male working population is employed outside the
> agricultural sector
> 3)Minimum population density of 400 persons per km
>
> Thanks Devdatta. It makes sense to have the place classification
> follow some kind of mapping to Census classification for consistency.
> Population should not be used as the only defining property to
> classify a place. We already have the `population` tag to record this
> value.

This is quite complex than I thought but it does makes sense to follow
Census classification. For now, I've added list of references for
classifying the places and shared this on
forum(http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=606639) too for
anymore responses.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

Re: [Talk-in] Classification of Indian places

[Arun Ganesh]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Devdatta Tengshe 
wrote:

> This link gives the criteria:
>
> http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_
> files/kerala/13-concept-34.pdf
>
> For a town, the population criteria is quite small. To be called a town,
> it should meet all the following criteria:
> 1)Population exceeds 5,000
> 2)At least 75% of male working population is employed outside the
> agricultural sector
> 3)Minimum population density of 400 persons per km
>
>
>
Thanks Devdatta. It makes sense to have the place classification follow
some kind of mapping to Census classification for consistency. Population
should not be used as the only defining property to classify a place. We
already have the `population` tag to record this value.
___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

Re: [Talk-in] Classification of Indian places

[Devdatta Tengshe]

This link gives the criteria:

http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/kerala/13-concept-34.pdf

For a town, the population criteria is quite small. To be called a town, it
should meet all the following criteria:
1)Population exceeds 5,000
2)At least 75% of male working population is employed outside the
agricultural sector
3)Minimum population density of 400 persons per km

Regards,
Devdatta Tengshe
Ph: 735-358-0782

On 27-Aug-2016 12:51 am, "Arun Ganesh"  wrote:

> The 2001 census defined a city as a place with over 100,000 persons [1].
> Any idea if there is a more updated definition, or what would be the
> difference between a village and town?
>
> [1] http://censusindia.gov.in/Metadata/Metada.htm#2c
>
> ___
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
>
>
___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

Re: [Talk-in] Classification of Indian places

[Warin]

I too, have raised this same subject on the Australian list and I have 
seen it raised on the UK list with regards to Scotland.


I think the population being used to determine the OSM place 
classification works well as a first iteration.
What is being determined here is not the official, legal determination 
of a place but rather the 'importance' of a place to the locals or a 
traveller.
That 'importance' is a reflection of the services you expect to find 
there - hospital/s, doctor/s, police, shop/a diversity of shops etc.
Those services are usually directly reflected by the population, where 
it falls down is when a place is
a) remote - thus it becomes more 'important' as it is the sole source of 
services to a much larger area
b) dense - thus the population gets reduced by the neighbouring places 
'taking' some of the population as their own. And some services being in 
an adjacent place.


Some on the Australian list say that they take the services as the 
indication of the type of 'place' that it is. I think that the vast 
majority of places fit well with the population based classification 
system.
However for remote areas I think that the population required can be 
reduced in proportion to the density of the total population (over a 
very large area). This would work for the remote areas of Australia, the 
Sahara, far eastern Russia, etc
For India ... I am not local so cannot judge. But I'd try to stick with 
the population based judgement. This gets away from any political 
effects that can be had. For example Perth, Scotland was a city untill 
some acts against the crown ruler .. the crown acted by removing the 
city title from Perth.


On 8/25/2016 5:06 PM, I Chengappa wrote:
I continue to oppose the proposal at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India:Places 
 because it can lead 
to classifications that are significantly different from common usage. 
Hence it will make the map less useful to users. For instance the 
proposal that the classification of 'village' should be used only for 
panchayats will often promote a smaller settlement and hide larger 
settlements. There will also be a disparity in usage across the country.


There is an adequate classification at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place which accords largely 
with common usage.


The government classification could however be attached to the node 
(or the boundary if available) with a specific key that reflects its 
administration status - e.g. GOIClassification=xxx.


On 22 August 2016 at 16:36, Yogesh K S > wrote:


Bringing this back again since there was no clear acceptance on the
classification of Indian places[1] from last discussion some years
back[2]. I can see that many small towns are tagged as cities in some
states[3]. And the List of Cities in India entry on enwiki is by
population which seems to be incomplete[4].

If there is a lack of consensus on classification proposal made on the
OpenStreetMap wiki India page, we can discuss or else use the same as
accepted one.


[1]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India:Places

[2]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-in/2012-May/thread.html

[3]http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/hYb 
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:List_of_cities_in_India




--
yogi


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





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



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

[Talk-in] Classification of Indian places

[Yogesh K S]

Bringing this back again since there was no clear acceptance on the
classification of Indian places[1] from last discussion some years
back[2]. I can see that many small towns are tagged as cities in some
states[3]. And the List of Cities in India entry on enwiki is by
population which seems to be incomplete[4].

If there is a lack of consensus on classification proposal made on the
OpenStreetMap wiki India page, we can discuss or else use the same as
accepted one.


[1]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India:Places
[2]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-in/2012-May/thread.html
[3]http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/hYb
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:List_of_cities_in_India



--
yogi



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in