[talk-au] place by remoteness

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu May 5 00:25:45 UTC 2016


Remoteness .. nice!
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.
How far to take the 'remoteness' effect on the population barriers to?
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!
So there are limits as to how far to go in this direction.

Would need to revert to
city>100,000>town>10,000>village>200>hamlet>100
for 'Major cities' and 'Inner regional' areas -
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?
These areas are in close proximity and would be similar around the world 
so the chosen population points should be suitable.

The 'Outer Regional' areas ... about half the population density so
city>50,000>town>5,000>village>100>hamlet>50
  The 'Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
city>25,000>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
The 'Very Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
city>12,500>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25

Err Winton would be come a village .. Longreach becomes a town... would 
that be acceptable?
I think that works for my perception of those places.

It will add to the complexity but be justifiable technically. Is it 
worth the added complexity?

On 4/05/2016 6:28 PM, Alex Sims wrote:
> 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.
>
> If you have a look at the map at 
> http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Looking at 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban_and_rural 
> this seems to support and adjustment based on remoteness in the 
> Australian context.
>
> Alex
>
>> On 4 May 2016, at 8:11 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/05/2016 12:50 AM, Christopher Barham wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03 May 2016, at 14:22, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>> 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 principle.
>>> </SNIP>
>>>
>>> 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 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes there is an 'official designation system' ... subject to 
>> political pressure and separate rules for each state.
>> I think the best guide we have is the population, certainly I think 
>> it is much better than the officially given 'status'.
>>
>> ----------------------
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20160505/63f8f5b0/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list