Mind you, this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Victoria,_Australia
Tells us that cities need at least 50,000 people, i guess Victoria is special. Seriously, i don't think a hard number only test is very appropriate. David Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: >>I would want "place=city" to refer to an urban populated area of at least >100,000 people as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Values > >> >> I've taken to fixing errors from Geofabrik OSMI and have changed places to >> match the schema above. Whilst I find hamlet & village grate on me as >> words, they are merely "code" for an object to be mapped. It's only really >> issue because I speak English (Australian) and the OSM schema was developed >> in English (United Kingdom) that there is an issue. If we all spoke Finnish >> or Swahili we wouldn't be having this discussion now. >> > >Ok, well what might be an obvious "error" to you is correct to someone >else. There are many OSM tags that have different meanings in different >parts of the world. It would be good to be consistent within Australia, but >it's not important whether our meaning precisely matches the meaning in the >UK or some other country. > >Looking at the wiki page you cite, it's clear that those definitions are >intended as rules of thumb: "Populations of villages vary widely in >different territories but will nearly always be less than 10,000 people, >often a lot less."; "[Cities s]hhould normally have a population of at >least 100,000 people and be larger than nearby towns." Normally, in densely >populated areas, that is. Applying that cut off in Victoria would lead to >only Melbourne and Geelong qualifying, with Bendigo and Ballarat just >missing out. > >Steve > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-au mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
