On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Ian Dees <[email protected]> wrote:
> On the contrary: I say all these critiques indicate the need for a > - More granular city name placement based closer on population than on the > place tag Place looks broken in some parts of US because some mappers choose to ignore existing practice for the basing the place tag on population. One reason that OSM has used place=city/town/village/hamlet as shorthand for population, if i remember the conversation correctly from 3-4 years ago, is that the UK Ordnance Survey claimed copyright on the population on signs in UK. So we couldn't just plunk that data into OSM. What remained, that a city is a city, and larger than a town, was what was available. So we agreed on arbitrary, and imperfect, guidelines of 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 to divide them. And that we would use that relative scale as a good guideline for prominence. US doesn't have the same restriction on the use of population data. So population should be entered from good data where we have it. No question there. You want to render prominence based on population, absolutely, do so. That US also has "legal incorporation status" which uses some of the same values the OSM uses for place is just a "false friend". Legal incorporation status should be accurately recorded in a legal incorporation status tag. Misusing place= because the values match leg_inc_stat= is just silly. Just because building=yes and oneway=yes are well used tags does not mean that all buildings are oneway. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
