On 20 November 2014 08:51, Andy Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > It’s not likely to be as simple as saying everywhere within a city boundary > is a suburb. A simple example is the town of Sutton Coldfield which recently > regained it Royal Town status, Its officially a town in every traditional > sense yet it is part of Birmingham though devolution of powers back to the > town from Birmingham is slowly (very slowly) happening with time. There is > no gap in the conurbation between what is known as Sutton Coldfield and the > rest of Birmingham. It’s not considered a suburb of Birmingham as it’s a > town destination in its own right and locals who hail from it would always > say they were from the town and not the city of Birmingham.
Why don't we follow post towns? In the Birmingham area, that would give us cities/town/villages Birmingham, Alcester, Bromsgrove, Halesowen, Cradley Heath, Rowley Regis, Smethwick, Oldbury, West Bromwich, Sutton Coldfield, Tamworth, Studyley, Solihull, Henley-in-Arden, and Redditch. Places like Moseley, Kings Heath, and Bournbrook would become suburbs, which is quite reasonable in my opinion - these places are clearly part of the settlement Birmingham. In most other countries, deciding between village and suburb is a bit easier because villages have their own town sign (usually functioning as built-up area sign as well), while suburbs have no such sign. Post towns in such countries, at least in the Netherlands, are usually equivalent to signed towns. -- Matthijs _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
