[Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Gregory]

What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion?

>From the "historic cathedral city of Durham",
Gregory.

>Should place:designation=* be a thing, so that we can save the legal
definition somewhere.
>
>You could then say we are tagging place=* for the renderer. But population
is not appropriate to be stored in OSM, and it seems a lot to ask of a
renderer to lookup population data for every city so it can order which
ones are most important to show (avoiding label collision). Renderers could
even use place=city|town on low zooms, but on high zooms use
place:designation=city to overlay a transparent label.
>
>In the UK a city was traditionally a place with a cathedral, legally it's
recognition from the queen. Lately she's make a few towns into cities for
giggles(or maybe something more serious/political, I don't follow it). I've
noticed every non-native English speaker (including Americans) seems to
struggle with the word "city" and even uses it for what I might consider a
village!
>
>From a very small city that has a magnificent cathedral,
>Gregory.

On 15 February 2016 at 12:22, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:

> Agreed...
>
>
> FWIW I have been using council_style=city or council_style=town on admin
> boundary relations (mostly civil parishes) to indicate non-default
> situations.
>
> This works where the status is held by a local authority, but where
> Charter Trustees are involved I don't have a solution in mind but Bath
> might be a good example to look at.
>
> --colin
>
> On 2016-02-15 12:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> On 12/02/2016 17:18, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> Several attempts have been made to "correct" the tagging from city to
> village/town... each time it was changed back to city...
>
>
> This, I think, illustrates why we really could do with a "legal_status"
> tag or similar for populated places. People, particularly those living in
> small (by population size) cities (in the legal sense) tend to be very
> protective of their city status, and dislike any attempt to override it.
> And saying that it's a global OSM policy isn't going to persuade them.
> Their argument (and to be fair, it's a very good argument) is that for a UK
> location, UK law takes precedence over the policy of a self-appointed
> voluntary group (which, ultimately, is all that OSM is). It's an argument
> that you won't win, short of banning people who disagree.
>
> The only way to reconcile this, in the long run, is to have two separate
> tags for populated places, one describing the size according to global OSM
> guidelines, and one describing the legal status according to local law.
>
> Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>


-- 
Gregory
osm at livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20160215/741d7eb8/attachment.html>