<p dir="ltr">Hi.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The remoteness doesn't need to change the definition of the place (e.g. make a hamlet a town) but rather only change how it is rendered.</p>
<p dir="ltr">A very remote track might show, as might a remote hamlet.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I agree this might be difficult to implement in the renderer.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> - Ben.</p>
<p dir="ltr">-- <br>
Ben Kelley<br>
<a href="mailto:ben.kelley@gmail.com">ben.kelley@gmail.com</a><br>
Sent from my Windows XP PC</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 5 May 2016 10:26, "Warin" <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Remoteness .. nice! <br>
It is based on population density .. the same argument I make for
lowering the population barriers for city/town/village for
Australia. So, yes, I do like it.<br>
How far to take the 'remoteness' effect on the population barriers
to? <br>
If the area has very little population then 1 person could be
defined as a city? NO, certain things are expected in a city ..
certainly more than 1 person! <br>
So there are limits as to how far to go in this direction. <br>
<br>
Would need to revert to <br>
city>100,000>town>10,000>village>200>hamlet>100 <br>
for 'Major cities' and 'Inner regional' areas - <br>
as judged by the 'remoteness' thing as I can see no reason not to
use the world wide population points here as the population
densities are similar?<br>
These areas are in close proximity and would be similar around the
world so the chosen population points should be suitable. <br>
<br>
The 'Outer Regional' areas ... about half the population density
so <br>
city>50,000>town>5,000>village>100>hamlet>50<br>
The 'Remote' areas ... about half the population density so <br>
city>25,000>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25<br>
The 'Very Remote' areas ... about half the population density so <br>
city>12,500>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25<br>
<br>
Err Winton would be come a village .. Longreach becomes a town...
would that be acceptable? <br>
I think that works for my perception of those places. <br>
<br>
It will add to the complexity but be justifiable technically. Is
it worth the added complexity? <br>
<br>
On 4/05/2016 6:28 PM, Alex Sims wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
I’ve had an involvement in this discussion in the past and wonder
if a way forward might be to include an adjusting factor for
remoteness.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you have a look at the map at <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure" target="_blank">http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure</a></a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>which shows the Australian Remoteness Index this
suggests that we could define town, hamlet, etc according to
population but then adjust the population limits downward for
remote areas.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The other point I’d make (as I did some time ago) is
that the labels are “British English” labels and form a
hierarchy where the names make sense in the UK but shouldn’t be
taken as a slight against any area. They are merely a series of
words that define the level of population centre. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Looking at <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban_and_rural" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban_and_rural</a>
this seems to support and adjustment based on remoteness in the
Australian context.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Alex</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 4 May 2016, at 8:11 AM, Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank">61sundowner@gmail.com</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>On 4/05/2016 12:50 AM,
Christopher Barham wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 03 May 2016, at 14:22, Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank">61sundowner@gmail.com</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<SNIP>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div lang="x-unicode">
<pre>Why judge on the population? </pre>
<pre><tt>Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical, Education ... they go hand in hand. </tt></pre>
<pre><tt>Populations are usually stated - on the entry signs to towns, villages .. and collected by the ABS. So verifiable and accessible.</tt></pre>
<pre><tt>Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts quickly. </tt></pre>
<pre><tt>Usually the relationship between population centres remains fairly static .. if one grows so do the surrounding ones. </tt></pre>
<pre><tt>Much easier to quickly asses and correctly tag this way. So it satisfies the KISS principle.
</tt></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</SNIP>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>City is not just a function of
population - It’s can also be a political
appointment/status? - e.g. Charters Towers and
Redcliffe are cities : <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes there is an 'official designation system' ...
subject to political pressure and separate rules for
each state. <br>
I think the best guide we have is the population,
certainly I think it is much better than the officially
given 'status'. <br>
<br>
----------------------<br>
I did leave out of the original post that the ABS data
may include more 'cities' with populations over 10,000
than the present OSM data base contains ... yet to sort
that out. <br>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-au mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-au mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>