On Thu, 5 May 2016 09:50:58 AM Timothy Ney wrote: > If for example, we demote all of the "towns" between Rockhampton > and Mackay to Hamlets or Villages, we are going to have 300 km of highway > with nothing shown at higher levels. At present, each of the small towns > (may have 1 pub, some services, a shop and a few houses), are labelled as > towns, and appear nicely if you zoom to a level where you can see Mackay > and Rockhampton on the same map. These "towns" indicate to drivers where > they are likely to find at least some services easily. It is difficult, > unless you know the areas, to zoom in on a particular area to locate a > "village" or "hamlet" on a 300km piece of highway, where the "towns: are > 30-40km apart.
Combining this thought with railway services, rather than an absolute structure for applying tags, what about a relative one? That is, the concept of hamlet vs village vs town is according to importance, which, historically was population, church etc. Today, a group of buildings with a service station ( and known opening hours) is more important on a main / major highway, than the same size grouping without vehicular services. Similarly, places on a railway line where passenger services stop is considered more important (profitable) by the railways than those in-between, even if the populations are the same. I suppose this could be extended to places with an aerodrome with sealed and or longer runway(s) being more important than those with un-sealed strips. -- Regards Simon Slater Registered Linux User #463789 http://linuxcounter.net _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
