[talk-au] Fwd: cities changed to towns

[Michael Krämer]

Arrgh, I've just noted that I havn't sent this to the list but as a direct
reply. So here another try:


2012/12/12 Nathan Van Der Meulen <natvander at yahoo.com>

> I completely disagree that population alone should be used to classify a
> location (unless the populations are seriously reduced).  Going by the
> suggested populations, places like Tenterfield, Glen Innes, Charleville
> will become villages and Norseman, Laverton and Lockhart hamlets.
>

I agree.


> The population method may well work in most of Europe as a 'village' of 2,000
> people will rarely be further than 50km from a town and therefore won't
> need facilities beyond a basic fuel station and general store.  Rural
> Australia is a different game.
>

Well, in fact it doesn't really work well in Europe either. To me it always
should be a mix of population *and* regional importance/situation. So while
a place like Noseman (or probably Wyndham) should definelty qualify for
place=town something in similar size in a more densely populated area might
not.

So my concern is more along the lines that even if a place legally/formally
is a city I wouldn't automatically imply "place=city".

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121212/604eb733/attachment.html>