On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:27 PM, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem here is subject v objective tagging, in terms of airports > this can be objective stated based on international flights a day and > the same with cities, if you want to indicate population tag > population, take for example some regional 'cities' in Australia some > have 50,000 or less people but still call themselves a city.
Yes, that's right. A map that is based 100% on objective, indisputable facts with no interpretation is unlikely to be the best possible map. How do we handle differences in interpretation? We'll need processes. And I think you give a good example. If there is only one town of any description in the middle of a vast desert, it ought to be shown at even low levels of zoom. This is standard practice in many maps, atlases etc. A town of 50,000 would barely even rate a mention in France, whereas that's pretty big for Australia. And a town like Eucla in the nullarbor (pop 50) has very high prominence as it's the only place for many miles with accommodation. Btw, Google does a much better job of this than Mapnik: http://osm.org/go/s6Xrs http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Moondarra+State+Park,+Moondarra+Victoria+3825,+Australia&ll=-32.676373,130.297852&spn=13.151424,11.491699&z=7 Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
