[Tagging] Why using place=city for legal status is a bad idea

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 28 00:21:46 GMT 2009


2009/12/28  <wynndale at lavabit.com>:
> Using tagged population figures as a substitute to guide renderers has
> been suggested but it brings its own problems because people will expect
> them to be more broadly useful and figures may either be out of date or it
> may be unclear what area is being counted.

We don't use population guidelines from the wiki in Australia,
otherwise most of what we consider to be towns wouldn't fit the
guidelines and would be deemed hamlets.

place=city has also been abused some what in Australia, because I
don't know how to fix the rendering software, and no one else the does
would be effected by this.

As Liz pointed out, it's a case of filling large blank areas and
mapnik doesn't show towns if there is not enough other places showing,
but we also have "regional centres" these are towns that support large
rural and remote areas, they are of local significance, some of them
claim to be cities but they're usually just slightly bigger towns
(Australian deff, not UK).

The further towards the centre of Australia you go the smaller these
regional centres become, but the significance increases due to the
fact there is so few people.




More information about the Tagging mailing list