Hoi,
A settlement is "in the administrative territorial entity" of something
higher up.. That could be the municipality.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 11 June 2014 08:35, David Cuenca <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gerard,
> Normally users don't want information about human settlements, but about
> municipalities, which may contain several human settlements. Ideally we
> should have both and let the user decide what to look for.
>
> Thanks,
> Micru
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> As far as I am concerned, it is relevant to compare "settlements" in
>> whatever country they are. A British "city" is always located in the United
>> Kingdom and even more precise it is "in the administrative unit of" a
>> county or whatever. When it is a city for historical reasons, this can be
>> indicated with a qualifier.
>>
>> In this way it is "is a" "settlement" and the rest can be deduced. Having
>> specific types of settlements for countries is imho not necessary in this
>> way.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>>
>> On 10 June 2014 22:14, David Cuenca <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gerard,
>>>
>>> I think we should not aim for a "perfect" system, just for "a better
>>> one". In our case we don't need to reproduce all cases, just identify the
>>> most relevant ones and to clarify when to use each and label/describe them
>>> clearly.
>>>
>>> "Part of" is understood, but in so many possible ways that its meaning
>>> gets diluted into uselessness.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Micru
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>>
>>>> I fear that when words like mereology are expected to be understood, we
>>>> will fall into the trap where our communities fear what we have been
>>>> sniffing. It will just alienate them.
>>>>
>>>> Part of is something that is understood. There may be academic reasons
>>>> that make sense to the people who care about them. The question I think we
>>>> should take serious is if that is really where we want to go.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> GerardM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10 June 2014 20:21, David Cuenca <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
