2011/1/19 Phil! Gold <[email protected]>: > * Steve Bennett <[email protected]> [2011-01-19 15:17 +1100]: >> I suggest we investigate something like a general prominence=* tag, >> with values of 1-10. > > I wouldn't be opposed to this, but I keep thinking a two-tiered system > like the Ranally City Rating System[0] might be a better approach. You'd > have one axis for general importance, like the Ranally System's numbers, > where 1 corresponds to national or global importance and 4 corresponds to > local importance; and another axis for a place's relative standing within > its region.
Sounds similar like the proposed rank: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/new_place_values The regional importance / significance will be relevant for smaller units (town, village) while global importance would be implied in "rank" for cities. The system is very easy: starting by 0 for highest and going down to 30 for less important places. Don't be afraid by the numbers, I suggest to only use 0, 10 , 20, 30 for the moment (but hereby keep optional space for intermediate levels if they might be necessary). Using a system like this would also allow for easier use in the rendering stylesheet (e.g. [rule:place=city and rank<20]) cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
