I hadn't even thought of the travel side tbh! Faily glaring when its
pointed out!
This type of competition for a grant or similar has become increasingly
common. I think Nottingham spent £500,000 to try & win a slot as a venue
for England's wonderfully successful World Cup bid, and the local
I think you are quite right Jerry, looks like participants are expected to
travel to London?!? Thats one way to keep the numbers down and limit it to
the South East England area!
On Monday 15 February 2016 17:23:37 SK53 wrote:
> I think most folk on this list are fairly familiar with these:
Hi
Many thanks for this. I take your point about the use of an OS specific term.
It would be good to have a consensus on a suitable designation tag and an
addition to the wiki on UK rights of way to cover its use.
As suggested, I will try and contact the highways department to see if they
I think most folk on this list are fairly familiar with these: they've been
running for quite a few years. I think CycleStreets participated in one of
them a while back. My general impression is that the cost of participating
is often non-trivial in comparison with the potential reward.
Jerry
On
>> Bath has not lost it's city status, unlike Rochester, so the designation
>> is correct.
> Absolutely, I was questioning the "arbitrary population limit", not the
> city status. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I was just indicating that while the population is less than 100k, it's
status as a city is
Just in case anyone is interested and had not heard of it yet:
10-20k GBP grants for location based products/services.
"Think of the Programme as an ideas incubator. Whether you’re a
developer, innovator or entrepreneur it’s the perfect funded start-up
accelerator if you want to create a
On 2016-02-15 16:46, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 15/02/16 14:15, Colin Smale wrote: On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote:
>
> So Bath is also a
> city despite being below some arbitrary population limit. Bath has around
> 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't
> have a city
On 15/02/16 14:15, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> So Bath is also a
>> city despite being below some arbitrary population limit.
>>
> Bath has around 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't
> have a city council, only Charter Trustees.
Bath
How is that similar circumstances?
The current council (Medway Council) hasn't tried to get Rochester's
city status back.
--colin
On 2016-02-15 16:32, paul.bivand wrote:
> Bath is still a city with Charter Trustees.
>
> In similar circumstances Rochester lost its city status on local
Bath is still a city with Charter Trustees.
In similar circumstances Rochester lost its city status on local authority
merger because they didn't appoint charter trustees.
The city status would have applied to the former boundary. The successor
council has failed repeatedly at getting city
On 15-Feb-16 13:48, Colin Smale wrote:
And would this
mean that St Davids is place=town, place:designation=city or the other
way round?
I have no axe to grind here (the city I live near has a population
>100,000 anyway), but if the former, I suspect the residents of St
David's would not be
On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote:
> So Bath is also a
> city despite being below some arbitrary population limit.
Bath has around 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't
have a city council, only Charter Trustees.
> If we know the
> population then it should be
It might not have gone actually, my e-mailing doesn't always do the right
thing for the lists.
I quoted it in my last e-mail though.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2016-February/018474.html
On 15 February 2016 at 13:48, Colin Smale wrote:
> I can't
I can't find Gregory's suggestion in my mailbox... did it go to the
list?
Is the suggestion to put place:designation=city on the place node? Or on
an admin boundary, or on a landuse=residential or what? Why is
place:designation needed, and not simply designation? And would this
mean that St
On 15/02/2016 12:35, Gregory wrote:
What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion?
That would make sense, yes.
Mark
--
http://www.markgoodge.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
On 15/02/2016 12:35, Gregory wrote:
What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion?
Sounds good to me. No uses yet (obviously), but would allow a more sane
"place" tagging for e.g. St David's, which isn't a really city in any
normal sense.
Cheers,
Andy
On 12/02/2016 17:10, Philip Barnes wrote:
The original node, http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3216768/history
http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=3216768
Thanks.
So mostly city, but it did spend a couple of years as a town and a
couple of shorter periods as village.
Cheers,
Andy
On 15/02/16 11:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
> The only way to reconcile this, in the long run, is to have two separate
> tags for populated places, one describing the size according to global
> OSM guidelines, and one describing the legal status according to local law.
Since there is a 'Should
What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion?
>From the "historic cathedral city of Durham",
Gregory.
>Should place:designation=* be a thing, so that we can save the legal
definition somewhere.
>
>You could then say we are tagging place=* for the renderer. But population
is not
Agreed...
FWIW I have been using council_style=city or council_style=town on admin
boundary relations (mostly civil parishes) to indicate non-default
situations.
This works where the status is held by a local authority, but where
Charter Trustees are involved I don't have a solution in mind
On 12/02/2016 17:18, Colin Smale wrote:
Several attempts have been made to "correct" the tagging from city to
village/town... each time it was changed back to city...
This, I think, illustrates why we really could do with a "legal_status"
tag or similar for populated places. People,
21 matches
Mail list logo