Re: [Talk-ca] Place Tagging
On Jan 24, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Danny McDonald wrote: > A place does not need to incorporated to be a place=town, city, village. > That is not how it works anywhere in OSM - there are many unincorporated > places with these tags, worldwide. The tagging in Ottawa is a good guide, > with e.g. Richmond a village, but e.g. Centretown and Stittsville > place=suburbs, based on distinctness. I don't believe I said it did, I do believe I said that a city is always incorporated, a town or village, "maybe." And, as I also said, "local tagging as a consensus or guide" is something to consider. This isn't alway black-and-white, nor easy. As we "do our best," things eventually emerge as correct, though it usually takes some time and effort to get there. (Consensus does). SteveA ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Place Tagging
A place does not need to incorporated to be a place=town, city, village. That is not how it works anywhere in OSM - there are many unincorporated places with these tags, worldwide. The tagging in Ottawa is a good guide, with e.g. Richmond a village, but e.g. Centretown and Stittsville place=suburbs, based on distinctness. DannyMcD On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:53 PM OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: > On Jan 24, 2019, at 7:50 AM, Danny McDonald wrote: > > My understanding of place tagging is that place=city, place=town, and > place=village are for distinct urban settlements, whether or not they are > separate municipalities. > > Correct, in that these tags can be placed upon a node, way or relation (if > a boundary relation, a node with role admin_centre is correct). Sometimes > a way (often a closed polygon) is not precisely known, or is, but license > restrictions prevent those data from entering OSM. In that case, a simple > node tagged place=* with appropriate value is used, as documented at > https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:place . Though, be aware and careful > regarding "incorporated" areas; see below. > > > Place=suburb is for large parts of urban settlements (such as North York > in Toronto, or Kanata in Ottawa). > > While I am not a political scientist, I did participate in the development > of consensus in the United_States in > https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level , a complex task > indeed (and I'll say we only have it "largely correct," certainly not > "exactly correct"). While Canada has similarities, it certainly is unique > in admin_level, appropriately documented at > https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Canada_admin_level . Yet an important concept > found in many countries, Canada included, is that of "incorporation" — > whether an urban settlement is a "body corporate." Cities always are, > suburbs and towns, depending on differing context for each of these, may or > may not be. > > > Whether to classify a place as a place=city/town/village or place=suburb > depends on the facts on the ground (I.e. whether a place is part of a > larger urban settlement), and not primarily on municipal/administrative > boundaries. > > I can't speak for all of Canada, but I can speak to what OSM documents in > our place=* wiki: that urban and rural populated places are distinguished > by two separate tables there, so it is useful to understand how OSM > characterizes these as slightly different (with specific tags in each > table). This is regardless of how any particular country might use the > same names. For example, place=suburb has a very specific semantic as it > is used in OSM, contrasted with how "real world" "suburb" might mean an > incorporated (smaller) city near a (larger) city, OR it might mean a > district/area/small region INSIDE of an incorporated city (how OSM means > it). We must be careful to tag in OSM with how OSM means things, mapping > our "real world" semantics onto OSM semantics. > > > Municipal boundaries might be somewhat relevant in determining if a > place is distinct (e.g. Vaughan is a city, not a suburb), but they are a > relatively minor factor. > > I don't know what this means exactly. Municipal boundaries ARE EXACTLY > relevant in determining if a place is distinct: they literally distinguish > it. In "real world speak" Vaughn might be called a suburb, but unless it > meets OSM's place=suburb definition, it shouldn't be tagged that way in > OSM. This isn't minor, it is "either correct or incorrect." > > > The main way that municipal names are mapped is through admin boundary > relations, not place nodes (although many municipalities have the same name > as their largest urban settlement, of course). > > Yes, this is true, although for many smaller human settlements (and some > larger ones), place nodes simply "will have to" suffice. > > > The way to distinguish between a place=city, place=town, and > place=village is population size, with nearby places shading things a bit > (so a smaller population size qualifies for a place=town in Northern > Ontario). Very roughly, a city has population >50k, a town has population > 5k-50k, and a village is <5k. > > OSM's place wiki notes that a village is more like "200 to town size" so > that 5k edge is fuzzy. The USA admin_level wiki documents some "rules of > thumb" here, but, yes, these can be rough, and are sometimes "stretched" > (or "shaded" as you say) a bit so that wide-zoom views of very rural areas > (e.g. northern Ontario) show settlements a bit more clearly. > > > There seems to be a persistent mis-understanding of this scheme, where > various editors (mainly @OntarioEditor and various other accounts > controlled by them) believe that place=city/town/village are for > municipalities, whether or not the municipality has one major urban > settlement with the same name as the municipality or not. They are also > tagging all unincorporated places in a municipality as place=suburb, >
Re: [Talk-ca] Place Tagging
On Jan 24, 2019, at 7:50 AM, Danny McDonald wrote: > My understanding of place tagging is that place=city, place=town, and > place=village are for distinct urban settlements, whether or not they are > separate municipalities. Correct, in that these tags can be placed upon a node, way or relation (if a boundary relation, a node with role admin_centre is correct). Sometimes a way (often a closed polygon) is not precisely known, or is, but license restrictions prevent those data from entering OSM. In that case, a simple node tagged place=* with appropriate value is used, as documented at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:place . Though, be aware and careful regarding "incorporated" areas; see below. > Place=suburb is for large parts of urban settlements (such as North York in > Toronto, or Kanata in Ottawa). While I am not a political scientist, I did participate in the development of consensus in the United_States in https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level , a complex task indeed (and I'll say we only have it "largely correct," certainly not "exactly correct"). While Canada has similarities, it certainly is unique in admin_level, appropriately documented at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Canada_admin_level . Yet an important concept found in many countries, Canada included, is that of "incorporation" — whether an urban settlement is a "body corporate." Cities always are, suburbs and towns, depending on differing context for each of these, may or may not be. > Whether to classify a place as a place=city/town/village or place=suburb > depends on the facts on the ground (I.e. whether a place is part of a larger > urban settlement), and not primarily on municipal/administrative boundaries. I can't speak for all of Canada, but I can speak to what OSM documents in our place=* wiki: that urban and rural populated places are distinguished by two separate tables there, so it is useful to understand how OSM characterizes these as slightly different (with specific tags in each table). This is regardless of how any particular country might use the same names. For example, place=suburb has a very specific semantic as it is used in OSM, contrasted with how "real world" "suburb" might mean an incorporated (smaller) city near a (larger) city, OR it might mean a district/area/small region INSIDE of an incorporated city (how OSM means it). We must be careful to tag in OSM with how OSM means things, mapping our "real world" semantics onto OSM semantics. > Municipal boundaries might be somewhat relevant in determining if a place is > distinct (e.g. Vaughan is a city, not a suburb), but they are a relatively > minor factor. I don't know what this means exactly. Municipal boundaries ARE EXACTLY relevant in determining if a place is distinct: they literally distinguish it. In "real world speak" Vaughn might be called a suburb, but unless it meets OSM's place=suburb definition, it shouldn't be tagged that way in OSM. This isn't minor, it is "either correct or incorrect." > The main way that municipal names are mapped is through admin boundary > relations, not place nodes (although many municipalities have the same name > as their largest urban settlement, of course). Yes, this is true, although for many smaller human settlements (and some larger ones), place nodes simply "will have to" suffice. > The way to distinguish between a place=city, place=town, and place=village is > population size, with nearby places shading things a bit (so a smaller > population size qualifies for a place=town in Northern Ontario). Very > roughly, a city has population >50k, a town has population 5k-50k, and a > village is <5k. OSM's place wiki notes that a village is more like "200 to town size" so that 5k edge is fuzzy. The USA admin_level wiki documents some "rules of thumb" here, but, yes, these can be rough, and are sometimes "stretched" (or "shaded" as you say) a bit so that wide-zoom views of very rural areas (e.g. northern Ontario) show settlements a bit more clearly. > There seems to be a persistent mis-understanding of this scheme, where > various editors (mainly @OntarioEditor and various other accounts controlled > by them) believe that place=city/town/village are for municipalities, whether > or not the municipality has one major urban settlement with the same name as > the municipality or not. They are also tagging all unincorporated places in > a municipality as place=suburb, regardless of size or distinctness. Finally, > they are using the official title of the municipality to determine if it is a > city/town/village, whether than using population size. This can lead to very > misleading results, as Ontario municipalities called towns range in size from > 313 to 195k, and Ontario municipalities called cities range in size from 8k > to 2.7M. Quebec “ville”s (which means town or city) range in size from 5 to > 1.6M. > > To give an example,
[Talk-ca] Place Tagging
My understanding of place tagging is that place=city, place=town, and place=village are for distinct urban settlements, whether or not they are separate municipalities. Place=suburb is for large parts of urban settlements (such as North York in Toronto, or Kanata in Ottawa). Whether to classify a place as a place=city/town/village or place=suburb depends on the facts on the ground (I.e. whether a place is part of a larger urban settlement), and not primarily on municipal/administrative boundaries. Municipal boundaries might be somewhat relevant in determining if a place is distinct (e.g. Vaughan is a city, not a suburb), but they are a relatively minor factor. The main way that municipal names are mapped is through admin boundary relations, not place nodes (although many municipalities have the same name as their largest urban settlement, of course). The way to distinguish between a place=city, place=town, and place=village is population size, with nearby places shading things a bit (so a smaller population size qualifies for a place=town in Northern Ontario). Very roughly, a city has population >50k, a town has population 5k-50k, and a village is <5k. There seems to be a persistent mis-understanding of this scheme, where various editors (mainly @OntarioEditor and various other accounts controlled by them) believe that place=city/town/village are for municipalities, whether or not the municipality has one major urban settlement with the same name as the municipality or not. They are also tagging all unincorporated places in a municipality as place=suburb, regardless of size or distinctness. Finally, they are using the official title of the municipality to determine if it is a city/town/village, whether than using population size. This can lead to very misleading results, as Ontario municipalities called towns range in size from 313 to 195k, and Ontario municipalities called cities range in size from 8k to 2.7M. Quebec “ville”s (which means town or city) range in size from 5 to 1.6M. To give an example, consider Minto ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7486154) in southwest Ontario. It has two distinct population centres, Harriston and Palmerston. In the OSM scheme, both are tagged as place=town, and the municipality name Minto (since it does not correspond to a distinct urban settlement) does not get a place tag (except perhaps as a place=municipality at the municipal offices). The mistaken scheme is to tag Harriston and Palmerston as place=suburb, and create a place=town node for Minto. Any thoughts? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
