[Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

Chris Hill osm at raggedred.net
Mon Sep 14 14:37:03 UTC 2015


On 14/09/15 15:18, Richard Symonds wrote:
> I see your problem... could you tell me how exactly you define the 
> hierarchy at the moment? Is it ad-hoc, with various rules in different 
> areas etc?
>
> Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on 
> definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population size. 
> If this gives odd results, then perhaps you could have a "booster 
> value" if the town is used as a post town or a seat of local 
> government (for example).
>
> I worry that trying to define terms like "village" or "town" is doomed 
> to failure, because very few will agree on what it means, no matter 
> how much we try ;-)
>
>
There is no hierarchy. For any rules you could chose it would be easy to 
find counter examples, probably within a few tens miles of where any of 
us live. UK places are a muddle and all the nicer for being so. 
Inventing a hierarchy to satisfy a short-sighted computer model would be 
bonkers. The very worst rule is population based. A place is a hamlet / 
village / town because the people who live there believe that is what it 
is. Rendering place names when space is tight and hence not showing 
some, based on population, has some merit. A village is a village 
because it is a village. If you can't tell that for yourself then get a 
local to tell you and in the process spread the word about OSM and 
surveying.

-- 
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly




More information about the Talk-GB mailing list