On 9/23/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, the specialized municipalities cause some problems.... I checked in > the source listing and it should be (which won't produce a match, and > therefore no change to existing nodes): > Sherwood Park (Urban Service Area) = Hamlet > Fort McMurray (Urban Service Area) = Hamlet
Hmm, I went to see what Wikipedia had to say about what a Hamlet was... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_(place)#Canada Just what we are talking about, but missing a little information. Sherwood Park held onto the hamlet designation for many years, bucking the establishment. If Sherwood Park were to become a city, it would need to draw a boundary around the city. For Sherwood Park to maintain it's status quo, they would need to include the refineries within the city limits to be able to siphon off the taxes. Doing so would leave Strathcona County without any tax base, so there would be a big fight over where the boundary would be drawn. Maintaining that hamlet status circumvented any boundary disputes by leaving the county governance in place. The change to a specialized municipality allows the whole county to gain access to different government funding, without having to draw city limits. However, after that is all said and done, there needs to be a way to tag the urban service node area commonly known as Sherwood Park. A settlement of 60,000 people should have a dot that shows up well before you are zoomed in looking at a 2 square mile area. Similarly, Fort McMurray should have a dot representative of the 50,000 inhabitants. The RM of Wood Buffalo is a large chunk of land, and drawing an outline around it, and trying to say this is the Specialized Municipality of Wood Buffalo is not representative of the area. > With the municipalities on would expect that a way would be used to mark > the boundary, and this way would contain tags for the population. Well, I drew the city limits of Edmonton many months ago, as well as the outline of Strathcona County, and Sherwood Park's urban service area. They never get rendered. > Towns/Villages/Hamlets within a specialized municipality could have a > 'population=refer to xxx' as a marker (until we really work out what to > do) and just place Town/Village/Hamlet node for name marking - the crime > of tagging for the renders I guess. There needs to be a way to designate zoom levels. If you zoom out on Edmonton, the label disappears behind Stony Plain or Spruce Grove, if I recall correctly. Edmonton has 600,000 people in it, Spruce Grove is about 40,000 I think. You have to zoom in pretty close before you can find the capital of Alberta on the map. > Crowsnest Pass also falls into this situation. Yup, and you should be able to put representative sized dots on the map for Coleman, Blairmore, Bellevue, and Hillcrest. There are many hundreds of place on the OSM map in Alberta that have names, and show up on the map. I could spend many hours wandering up and down through the bush looking for anything other than trees, moose and squirrels! James VE6SRV _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
