Hi everyone, Firstly, a qualification:I've not read the Wiki on this subject,
so this is simply my opinion without the support of guidelines/rules/etc. I
believe, having authored/compiled some detail Magellan maps for eXplorist GPSrs
this year, that more important than guidelines or rules that are documented,
there needs to be a hierarchy in the data. Obviously, a city in Europe will be
much larger than one in Australia, and similarly, ours will be much larger than
those in more remote countries. And the size differs, not only in population,
but also in geographical area (since population densities also vary). For
example, let me just describe the east coast of N.S.W., centred on Sydney: I
reckon Sydney, Newcastle, and Wollongong are "no-brainers" - they're cities.
But also, Gosford and Wyong on the Central Coast should be classified the same.
Now, while I'm sure such places as Parramatta are also cities (I've not
verified this, but I'm pretty sure), from a mapping perspective, Sydney is
probably all that is needed. So, on a broad view, you will see Sydney, with
Newcastle to the north, and Wollongong to the South, as well as Gosford/Wyong
midway between Sydney & Newcastle. The next level should then be those centres
within the metropolitan areas which warrant attention: in Sydney, such places
as Strathfield, Parramatta, Penrith, Chatswood, Hornsby, Hurstville &
Sutherland (plus, I'm sure there are others). IMHO, keeping sight of the
end-use (i.e. a map) is more important than strictly applying a "rule" based
purely on numbers (although, when in doubt, these can be helpful). So places
like Parramatta might not be classified as "cities" when in fact they are,
while others in more remote parts of our country might be classified, even
though they might not be "cities". Any thoughts? Cheers,Paul.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
