On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Gustav Foseid <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Karl Newman <[email protected]>wrote: > >> You're still missing the point about San Jose--it's larger in both area >> and population (and probably in economic activity as well), and is located >> within an hour's drive of San Francisco, but San Francisco is better known >> around the world and should arguably take priority in rendering. >> > > My idea was that major_ could be used for a city "of greater importance" of > some kind. Someone also suggested a value metropolis for the large > metropolitan areas. > > I do not agree that using population or area is a good way to solve this > problem. Finding population data for all named places is not easy (this > problem extends beyond the largest cities) and population is not necessarily > a good way to find the most "important" place name in an area. > > - Gustav > Sure it is. If a lot of people want to live in a place, in general that should make it more notable. Besides, I was only suggesting using population as a tiebreaker for equal "place" key values. It's not the final answer, but it's objective and it goes a long way toward fixing the problem. I don't like your _major and _minor suffixes because they imply different population, which is not how you described it. Karl
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
