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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
