I think we should drop "part of" and start using a better mereological system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png
Cheers, Micru On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire <[email protected]> wrote: > Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' > there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The > question is down to what to include. > > A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area > but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region > that bears the name. So we have the "City of London" (the central business > district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), "Greater London" > (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater > London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the "City > of London" but does include the "City of Westminster"), all the built up > areas out to the "Metropolitan green belt" (includes bits of every county > adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of > Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it > is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed). > > When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? > Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? > Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor? > > Joe > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human >> > settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of >> > "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class to >> use >> > in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the >> UK >> > (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human >> > settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between >> "village", >> > "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done >> uniformly >> > across the data. >> > >> > Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more >> than >> > 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I >> think >> > is basically what you also are saying below :-). >> >> OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling >> something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that >> everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious >> bit is :-) >> >> I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know >> this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have >> disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search >> based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of >> 'human settlement'" instead..." >> >> -- >> - Andrew Gray >> [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
