There aren't that many cities with duplicate/multiple names. So I'd guess a wiki page where they are listed and the community decides a stacking order would be straightforward enough. Obviously doing it at lower levels this approach wouldn't work. Info can then be tagged and used by namefinder?
Cheers Andy >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Earl >Sent: 28 November 2008 11:15 AM >To: osm >Subject: [OSM-talk] Hierarchy of places > >The discussion of finding Paris Ontario equated to Paris France just now >reminds me to raise again the granularity of our place hierarchy. >Notwithstanding value judgements people make about what is a "town", not >just based on population, I still think we need some more levels in the >city - town - village - hamlet hierarchy. > >I could use population in the namefinder (and ditto for caption size, >priority etc in renderers) if that were given more widely, but the >problem is that in the UK at least this information is subject to crown >copyright (I assume any one figure is a fact, and therefore not >copyright, but the collection is database copyright). > >I think we could do with a richer hierarchy something like this: >metropolis > 500,000 >city > 100,000 >large_town > 25,000? 40,000? >town > 10,000 >small_town / large_village > 2,500 >village > 100 >hamlet < 100 > >I'm sure we can argue about the names and numbers, but I don't think >that's too important as people will always bring their own local >knowledge to bear as well, not least based on what the place chooses to >call itself. For example, Hay-on-Wye (Y-Gelli), Powys is most definitely >a town even though it has fewer than 2,000 people, but Linton, >Cambridgeshire is a "village" of nearly 5,000 souls. > >Another possibility is to make judgements about "importance" based on >land area. I think this would be hard, though not completely impossible, >to infer automatically from the data, but I wonder if a "radius" value >on the place might help - "a circle approximately this big would enclose >the place". Perhaps over-exaggerates coastal settlements and others >which aren't blobs, so can only be a coarse judgement, but it might help >me in deciding what "in" and "near" mean in the context of searches, >especially for places which "punch above their weight". > >David > > > > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.11/1816 - Release Date: 27/11/2008 >7:53 PM _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
