[talk-au] place=? An oldie but no past conclusion.
osm at 97k.com
Tue May 3 22:29:08 UTC 2016
>From what you have written, I think you are probably right to change
classificaiton of Quobba Station to village rather than town.
In regard to smaller rural centres, I have also been wondering about
classifications. In South Australia, some rural properties constitute
their own official location with their own allocated postcode. In one
case the farm is known as "Oakvale" but the official Government-approved
name for the location with defined boundaries and its own allocated
postcode is "Oakvale Station". I had originally labelled it as
place=farm but the OSM WIki says that if the farm is not part of a
larger settlement, then it should be labelled as "isolated_dwelling".
Since it is its own suburb and not part of a larger settlement, I have
labelled it as place=isolated_dwelling.
"Hamlet" can be a small population but does not necessarily have a
central location- thus Mossgiel in NSW has a defined area and postcode
with scattered farms in the area but there is no centre with shops or
services - thus it is tagged as place=hamlet. Once a place has shops,
pub, other services etc. I think it qualifies as a "village". But two
places could be villages even though one is a fair bit larger than the
other - if you can get food and fuel etc. but it's not big enough to be
a town, then "village" is a good classification.
In NSW, "city" is an official Local Government Area status approved by
Government so that some larger towns (and their surrounding areas) are
designated as cities e.g Albury, Waga Wagga, Griffith and locations
within their city boundaries are officially "suburbs". The "suburb" with
the same name as the LGA is usually also identified as "city". In
Sydney, some major suburban centres such as Parramatta are identified by
Government as cities. I think the official classification works fairly
well in NSW and is useful guide for tagging in OSM but not sure about
Then there are areas that have defined boundaries as "suburb" and
designated postcodes but have no permanent population as far as I know
(such as Jagungal Wilderness in NSW or Danggali in SA). Not sure how to
classify them. "Locality" is used for much smaller places that have no
boundaries, postcode or population and seems not the right tag for
larger areas with defined boundaries.
On Tue, May 3, 2016, at 10:22 PM, Warin wrote:
> I came across Quobba Station and Canarvon where Canarvon is a
> 'village' and Quobba Station is a 'town'. I know Canarvon is larger
> than Quobba Station! So I re-tagged Quobba Station as 'village'. But
> I wondered on it.. so looked up the OSMwiki .. not much help... the
> Australian tagging guidelines ... errr not really. I then considered
> getting all the Australian OSM data on places with the population
> data, Got the cities data fine, but the towns data is too large a
> single bite and the server objected. Fine, I worked on the city
> data. Some 90 are set as cities... I'll ignore those above 10,000
> people and list the others here so you have an idea of those that
> maybe reclassified as 'towns' under my proposal. If a place is close
> to the 10,000 mark and there are no others around that location then
> I'd consider it a city, but other wise a town. Charters Towers
> 8,234 Charleville 4,700 Caloundra 3,550 Winton
> 1,337 I know Winton ... it is smaller than Longreach (both in
> population, about 3 times, and number of pubs).. yet Longreach is
> not tagged a city?
> _Conclusion_: there is a significant error in the relative ratings
> between places - even ones that are not that far apart! The situation
> with towns and villages is more numerous! The server objected to my
> bulk download ... so I'll do that in bits later ... unless there is no
> point - that is if there are strong objections here? Little point in
> doing the large bit of work if there will be no outcome. So below is a
> small attempt to clarify and simplify the situation in Australia. From
> the _OSM wiki_ I get the following use of occupied places By
> _ The present Australian use appears to be roughly _ By population.
> I think that is reasonable. The difference between the two is that
> Australia has a smaller than 'average' population density, so smaller
> places have more facilities due to the distance involved to get to the
> nearest larger place. For example - Australia is about the same size
> and mainland USA .. but 1/10 th the population.. so it stands to
> reason that the Australian population density would be about 1/10th ..
> so a 'town' would be about 1/10th too. Why judge on the population?
> Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical, Education ...
> they go hand in hand. Populations are usually stated - on the entry
> signs to towns, villages .. and collected by the ABS. So verifiable
> and accessible. Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts quickly.
> Usually the relationship between population centres remains fairly
> static .. if one grows so do the surrounding ones. Much easier to
> quickly asses and correctly tag this way. So it satisfies the KISS
> _Problems_... ? In large centres like Sydney and Melbourne some parts
> would be judged as 'cities' in their own right ... not certain if
> that is a problem or not? Comments? I am more concerned with the
> country side, rather than the messy cities.
> Are there any objections/comment/other ideas to the above ?
> I have read the past posts on this ...
> but I could draw no reasonable conclusion. There was a suggestion that
> the number of pubs be used ... which I think is quite Australian, I
> use it to judge safety when parked .. less than 3 pubs = safe..
> everyone knows everyone. More than 2 - cover and lock up. By pubs
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au