I too, have raised this same subject on the Australian list and I have
seen it raised on the UK list with regards to Scotland.
I think the population being used to determine the OSM place
classification works well as a first iteration.
What is being determined here is not the official, legal determination
of a place but rather the 'importance' of a place to the locals or a
traveller.
That 'importance' is a reflection of the services you expect to find
there - hospital/s, doctor/s, police, shop/a diversity of shops etc.
Those services are usually directly reflected by the population, where
it falls down is when a place is
a) remote - thus it becomes more 'important' as it is the sole source of
services to a much larger area
b) dense - thus the population gets reduced by the neighbouring places
'taking' some of the population as their own. And some services being in
an adjacent place.
Some on the Australian list say that they take the services as the
indication of the type of 'place' that it is. I think that the vast
majority of places fit well with the population based classification
system.
However for remote areas I think that the population required can be
reduced in proportion to the density of the total population (over a
very large area). This would work for the remote areas of Australia, the
Sahara, far eastern Russia, etc
For India ... I am not local so cannot judge. But I'd try to stick with
the population based judgement. This gets away from any political
effects that can be had. For example Perth, Scotland was a city untill
some acts against the crown ruler .. the crown acted by removing the
city title from Perth.
On 8/25/2016 5:06 PM, I Chengappa wrote:
I continue to oppose the proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India:Places
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India:Places> because it can lead
to classifications that are significantly different from common usage.
Hence it will make the map less useful to users. For instance the
proposal that the classification of 'village' should be used only for
panchayats will often promote a smaller settlement and hide larger
settlements. There will also be a disparity in usage across the country.
There is an adequate classification at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place which accords largely
with common usage.
The government classification could however be attached to the node
(or the boundary if available) with a specific key that reflects its
administration status - e.g. GOIClassification=xxx.
On 22 August 2016 at 16:36, Yogesh K S <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Bringing this back again since there was no clear acceptance on the
classification of Indian places[1] from last discussion some years
back[2]. I can see that many small towns are tagged as cities in some
states[3]. And the List of Cities in India entry on enwiki is by
population which seems to be incomplete[4].
If there is a lack of consensus on classification proposal made on the
OpenStreetMap wiki India page, we can discuss or else use the same as
accepted one.
[1]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India:Places
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India:Places>
[2]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-in/2012-May/thread.html
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-in/2012-May/thread.html>
[3]http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/hYb <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/hYb>
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:List_of_cities_in_India
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:List_of_cities_in_India>
--
yogi
_______________________________________________
Talk-in mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in>
_______________________________________________
Talk-in mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
_______________________________________________
Talk-in mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
