Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Warin]

On 09-Oct-17 06:38 PM, Warin wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 06:13 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On 9 October 2017 at 16:04, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


One problem is that 'locality' does not translate well.
I'd think that any admin area would have someone resident in the
area.
So tagging them OSM 'locality' may not be the best?

OSM says 'hamlet ' is less then 100-200 people. think that fits best?


But what do we do when those "few" people are spread out over a 
largish area, with no central location?


The area of Lamington in SEQ 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-28.2351/152.9940, was, I 
thought, originally a locality, but is now shown as a hamlet.


Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamington,_Queensland says that in 
2011, it had a population of 463 people, but they're spread out over 
probably 200km2, if not more?


The "heart" of Lamington consists of 2 camping grounds, 5k apart, one 
of which has a cafe / recreation centre (School camping type of 
arrangement) next door, 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-28.28710/153.03499, a handful 
of B's & farms & that's about it.


To me, it should probably be a locality as there's nothing really 
there, a hamlet, IMHO, should feature a central clump of at least 
some homes / buildings, that you can point to & say "Yep, that's 
wherever" :-)




Yep.
Tagging these area with 'place' may suit things where the population 
density is high -e.g. Europe - but does not sit well here.

These areas have no real centre.
Should one of these areas be tested by leaving out the place tag and 
see what happens?


Looking at the place key https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place

there are also non population specific places  that might suit

district?
region?
province?

These don't have good definitions on the OSMwiki.

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

Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Warin]

On 09-Oct-17 06:13 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On 9 October 2017 at 16:04, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


One problem is that 'locality' does not translate well.
I'd think that any admin area would have someone resident in the area.
So tagging them OSM 'locality' may not be the best?

OSM says 'hamlet ' is less then 100-200 people. think that fits best?


But what do we do when those "few" people are spread out over a 
largish area, with no central location?


The area of Lamington in SEQ 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-28.2351/152.9940, was, I 
thought, originally a locality, but is now shown as a hamlet.


Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamington,_Queensland says that in 
2011, it had a population of 463 people, but they're spread out over 
probably 200km2, if not more?


The "heart" of Lamington consists of 2 camping grounds, 5k apart, one 
of which has a cafe / recreation centre (School camping type of 
arrangement) next door, 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-28.28710/153.03499, a handful of 
B's & farms & that's about it.


To me, it should probably be a locality as there's nothing really 
there, a hamlet, IMHO, should feature a central clump of at least some 
homes / buildings, that you can point to & say "Yep, that's wherever" :-)




Yep.
Tagging these area with 'place' may suit things where the population 
density is high -e.g. Europe - but does not sit well here.

These areas have no real centre.
Should one of these areas be tested by leaving out the place tag and see 
what happens?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 9 October 2017 at 16:04, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One problem is that 'locality' does not translate well.
> I'd think that any admin area would have someone resident in the area.
> So tagging them OSM 'locality' may not be the best?
>
> OSM says 'hamlet ' is less then 100-200 people. think that fits best?


But what do we do when those "few" people are spread out over a largish
area, with no central location?

The area of Lamington in SEQ
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-28.2351/152.9940, was, I thought,
originally a locality, but is now shown as a hamlet.

Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamington,_Queensland says that in 2011,
it had a population of 463 people, but they're spread out over probably
200km2, if not more?

The "heart" of Lamington consists of 2 camping grounds, 5k apart, one of
which has a cafe / recreation centre (School camping type of arrangement)
next door, http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-28.28710/153.03499, a
handful of B's & farms & that's about it.

To me, it should probably be a locality as there's nothing really there, a
hamlet, IMHO, should feature a central clump of at least some homes /
buildings, that you can point to & say "Yep, that's wherever" :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Warin]

On 09-Oct-17 04:33 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:



On 7/10/17 08:59, Warin wrote:


Rather inconsistent! 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales says the 
population 2011 was over 600.


Yeap, need to be careful when interpreting ABS data. In 2011 Biniguy 
was a 2500 square kilometre locality and had a population of 625. By 
2016 the Biniguy locality had been shrunk considerably and has a 
population of 147. The population of the "CBD" around the silo is a 
massive 78 (plus/minus the random error the ABS adds "to protect the 
confidentiality of data"). The old NATMAP standard was that you needed 
a population of at least 200 to be considered a populated place, so 
I'm not sure if Biniguy even qualifies to be a hamlet.


OSM locality is defined as having a population of 0. Biniguy is more 
than that at least at the moment :)






The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at 
all?




I don't know. When I started importing the NSW admin_level 10 
boundaries the existing tagging practice was to add a place tag. I set 
all of my place tags to locality by default and added a fixme tag to 
review this. The most important thing seems to be to add the place 
node to the admin relation as a label as this lets consumers like 
Nominatim know that they are the same thing (it also allows the two 
place tags to be programmatically checked).


One problem is that 'locality' does not translate well.
I'd think that any admin area would have someone resident in the area.
So tagging them OSM 'locality' may not be the best?

OSM says 'hamlet ' is less then 100-200 people. think that fits best?







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

Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Andrew Davidson]

On 7/10/17 08:59, Warin wrote:


Rather inconsistent! 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales says the 
population 2011 was over 600.


Yeap, need to be careful when interpreting ABS data. In 2011 Biniguy was 
a 2500 square kilometre locality and had a population of 625. By 2016 
the Biniguy locality had been shrunk considerably and has a population 
of 147. The population of the "CBD" around the silo is a massive 78 
(plus/minus the random error the ABS adds "to protect the 
confidentiality of data"). The old NATMAP standard was that you needed a 
population of at least 200 to be considered a populated place, so I'm 
not sure if Biniguy even qualifies to be a hamlet.




The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?



I don't know. When I started importing the NSW admin_level 10 boundaries 
the existing tagging practice was to add a place tag. I set all of my 
place tags to locality by default and added a fixme tag to review this. 
The most important thing seems to be to add the place node to the admin 
relation as a label as this lets consumers like Nominatim know that they 
are the same thing (it also allows the two place tags to be 
programmatically checked).


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

Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Warin]

The road names are correct according to the LPI base map.
Don't see anything wrong with it - roads do change their names through 
towns, particularly at right angle turns.




The relationship 6069701 - administration boundary says its source is 
the LPI base map - yet that has no information on population
 so I assume it comes from somewhere else. This also has a postcode 
attached ..


I would think any admin boundary will have some population in it .. so 
it could not possibly be an OSM locality?
I do think it might be worth looking for these relations with admin 
boundary and locality and 'fixing' them. Anyone?


-
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales

Biniguy was a village, from a services view point, over 30 years ago .. had a 
post office, store.



On 07-Oct-17 06:39 PM, m.james wrote:

Just notice the main road coming off the highway has a different name as it 
passes by Biniguy to that of the surrounding road section.

You might want to check that out as well.



-Original Message-
From: m.james [mailto:m.ja...@internode.on.net]
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 5:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

The village designation is coming from nswgnb, I tried to get their info for 
why it has that designation but got a 404 link from their website.

We should fall back on the osm standards which give it as a hamlet as it is not 
>1000 in population.

The second node should be removed as it is describing the same thing.

I like to have these tagged as an area around the main part of the settlement 
but they tend to not render on the standard osm rendering engine even though 
area is an acceptable method of tagging for places, you can decide which ever 
you prefer.

Not sure if we are allowed to pull the postcode info from AP or not but if we 
can you should add it as it is nice to have that info.

The relation looks like it has been edited recently, you could message the 
person working on that to get them to check it for correctness.

-Original Message-
From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 7:59 AM
To: talk-au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

Hi

Using https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-29.612/150.480 there are some 
'places' that look like they can be 'improved'.


However that are some that identify obvious inconsistencies!

   Biniguy in OSM is mapped as a;

locality (no population) relation 6069701

hamlet (small population) node 113689225

village (lager population) node 113689249


Rather inconsistent! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales 
says the population 2011 was over 600.

I have moved the village node to the village rather than the farm or that name.
I think the hamlet might be deleted or should the village be deleted?
No school, shops so might be better as a hamlet.

The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?


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



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



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



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

Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[m.james]

Just notice the main road coming off the highway has a different name as it 
passes by Biniguy to that of the surrounding road section.

You might want to check that out as well.



-Original Message-
From: m.james [mailto:m.ja...@internode.on.net] 
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 5:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

The village designation is coming from nswgnb, I tried to get their info for 
why it has that designation but got a 404 link from their website.

We should fall back on the osm standards which give it as a hamlet as it is not 
>1000 in population.

The second node should be removed as it is describing the same thing.

I like to have these tagged as an area around the main part of the settlement 
but they tend to not render on the standard osm rendering engine even though 
area is an acceptable method of tagging for places, you can decide which ever 
you prefer.

Not sure if we are allowed to pull the postcode info from AP or not but if we 
can you should add it as it is nice to have that info.

The relation looks like it has been edited recently, you could message the 
person working on that to get them to check it for correctness.

-Original Message-
From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 7:59 AM
To: talk-au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

Hi

Using https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-29.612/150.480 there are some 
'places' that look like they can be 'improved'.


However that are some that identify obvious inconsistencies!

  Biniguy in OSM is mapped as a;

locality (no population) relation 6069701

hamlet (small population) node 113689225

village (lager population) node 113689249


Rather inconsistent! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales 
says the population 2011 was over 600.

I have moved the village node to the village rather than the farm or that name.
I think the hamlet might be deleted or should the village be deleted?
No school, shops so might be better as a hamlet.

The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?


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



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



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

Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[m.james]

The village designation is coming from nswgnb, I tried to get their info for 
why it has that designation but got a 404 link from their website.

We should fall back on the osm standards which give it as a hamlet as it is not 
>1000 in population.

The second node should be removed as it is describing the same thing.

I like to have these tagged as an area around the main part of the settlement 
but they tend to not render on the standard osm rendering engine even though 
area is an acceptable method of tagging for places, you can decide which ever 
you prefer.

Not sure if we are allowed to pull the postcode info from AP or not but if we 
can you should add it as it is nice to have that info.

The relation looks like it has been edited recently, you could message the 
person working on that to get them to check it for correctness.

-Original Message-
From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 7:59 AM
To: talk-au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

Hi

Using https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-29.612/150.480 there are some 
'places' that look like they can be 'improved'.


However that are some that identify obvious inconsistencies!

  Biniguy in OSM is mapped as a;

locality (no population) relation 6069701

hamlet (small population) node 113689225

village (lager population) node 113689249


Rather inconsistent! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales 
says the population 2011 was over 600.

I have moved the village node to the village rather than the farm or that name.
I think the hamlet might be deleted or should the village be deleted?
No school, shops so might be better as a hamlet.

The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?


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



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

[talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Warin]

Hi

Using https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-29.612/150.480 there 
are some 'places' that look like they can be 'improved'.



However that are some that identify obvious inconsistencies!

 Biniguy in OSM is mapped as a;

locality (no population) relation 6069701

hamlet (small population) node 113689225

village (lager population) node 113689249


Rather inconsistent! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales 
says the population 2011 was over 600.

I have moved the village node to the village rather than the farm or that name.
I think the hamlet might be deleted or should the village be deleted?
No school, shops so might be better as a hamlet.

The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?


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