[talk-au] place by remoteness

Ben Kelley ben.kelley at gmail.com
Thu May 5 00:35:27 UTC 2016


Hi.

The remoteness doesn't need to change the definition of the place (e.g.
make a hamlet a town) but rather only change how it is rendered.

A very remote track might show, as might a remote hamlet.

I agree this might be difficult to implement in the renderer.

  - Ben.

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kelley at gmail.com
Sent from my Windows XP PC
On 5 May 2016 10:26, "Warin" <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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> 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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing listTalk-au at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20160505/6de77ab7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list