[Tagging] Tagging Metropolis

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Wed Jan 19 06:49:32 GMT 2011


On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:27 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem here is subject v objective tagging, in terms of airports
> this can be objective stated based on international flights a day and
> the same with cities, if you want to indicate population tag
> population, take for example some regional 'cities' in Australia some
> have 50,000 or less people but still call themselves a city.

Yes, that's right. A map that is based 100% on objective, indisputable
facts with no interpretation is unlikely to be the best possible map.
How do we handle differences in interpretation? We'll need processes.

And I think you give a good example. If there is only one town of any
description in the middle of a vast desert, it ought to be shown at
even low levels of zoom. This is standard practice in many maps,
atlases etc. A town of 50,000 would barely even rate a mention in
France, whereas that's pretty big for Australia. And a town like Eucla
in the nullarbor (pop 50) has very high prominence as it's the only
place for many miles with accommodation.

Btw, Google does a much better job of this than Mapnik:

http://osm.org/go/s6Xrs
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Moondarra+State+Park,+Moondarra+Victoria+3825,+Australia&ll=-32.676373,130.297852&spn=13.151424,11.491699&z=7

Steve



More information about the Tagging mailing list