On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:36 PM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > Way back in the thread you wrote: >> >> >>> OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by >> >>> using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags.
That was Mateusz, not me! In any case, if the sole determinant for whether something is a 'wood' or a 'forest' is its land area, then the distinctive tag is redundant. If it is an indicator of 'relative importance', then it may be meaningful, but will likely run afoul of verifiability. I am given to understand that in the UK, the 'hamlet', 'village', 'town', 'city' hierarchy is indeed loosely based on services: a village has at least a church; a town has a market; a city has a cathedral or a university. Other countries do it differently, and you're right that at present the distinction is fairly subjective (and amounts to tagging for the renderer: at what zoom level should a municipality or settlement appear?) I'm OK with that because I can't think of a better way to do it! > My point stands. OSM distinguishes between the sizes of localities (in order > to render them > differently at different zooms) by a means that is not an area or a > dimension. The choice of > hamlet/village/etc. is supposedly related to population size but only > loosely, especially when > some mappers take the number and type of available services into account as > well as > (or instead of) the population. We appear to be in 'violent agreement', then. Making the distinction based solely on a dimension is a mistake. If it's 'relative importance' I can live with it, but need a better guideline about how to make the distinction. (I don't insist on a quantitative one, just a loose definition.) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
