On 14/09/15 15:18, Richard Symonds wrote:
I see your problem... could you tell me how exactly you define the
hierarchy at the moment? Is it ad-hoc, with various rules in different
areas etc?
Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on
definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population size.
If this gives odd results, then perhaps you could have a "booster
value" if the town is used as a post town or a seat of local
government (for example).
I worry that trying to define terms like "village" or "town" is doomed
to failure, because very few will agree on what it means, no matter
how much we try ;-)
There is no hierarchy. For any rules you could chose it would be easy to
find counter examples, probably within a few tens miles of where any of
us live. UK places are a muddle and all the nicer for being so.
Inventing a hierarchy to satisfy a short-sighted computer model would be
bonkers. The very worst rule is population based. A place is a hamlet /
village / town because the people who live there believe that is what it
is. Rendering place names when space is tight and hence not showing
some, based on population, has some merit. A village is a village
because it is a village. If you can't tell that for yourself then get a
local to tell you and in the process spread the word about OSM and
surveying.
--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
