[Talk-us] Merging a GNIS node with a TIGER way - for a town
steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Wed Jan 29 21:01:31 UTC 2014
I like Toby Murray's solution, as I've seen it before, it makes sense
and it works well with Nominatim.
>Note that if you delete the node, the city name will no longer be
>rendered on <http://osm.org>osm.org or Mapquest Open. Not sure about
>other renderings but I'm guessing a lot of them do the same thing.
>Another way of fixing the nominatim problem is to create a boundary
>relation for the city. Move the tags from the way to the relation
>and then add the node to the relation with a role of "label" as this
>will cause nominatim to merge the two into a single entity while
>still rendering the name on the map.
In California, I use the following to guide my use of the place= tag.
This is QUITE rough, but serves well:
city=50,000 or greater population
town=10,000 to 50,000 population, especially if it is an incorporated
city, but not very populous
village=1000 to 10,000 population, especially if there is a commercial zone
hamlet=dozens to hundreds of people, or even a bit more, especially
if there is NO commercial zone
isolated_dwelling=just that: maybe a single family (or two or
three), usually in a remote area
locality=0 population, as it is simply a place designation, not a
place where people live.
I sometimes fuzz the village boundary a bit: a hamlet that has a
(very) small business/commercial zone can rightly be called a
village, even if it is only hundreds of people. A hamlet's
crossroads fuel station with a convenience market, an ATM, a public
phone and a postal box might be just enough to tip hamlet into
I reserve the tag suburb= as a true subdivision level 1 tag (under
city or town) only with values of names that are "districts" of a
larger city. These can be very well defined or rather vague. I
reserve the tag neighbourhood= as a true subdivision level 2 tag
(under city or town). The subdivision levels are well explained in a
table in OSM's Place wiki.
While not straying too far in the direction of "coding for the
renderer," I have noticed that these selections do render in mapnik
(at virtually all zoom levels properly) as "rather pleasing," at
least for areas I have designated with these tags and that I know.
As long as we are on the topic, I do think there is something to be
said for place= values like:
large_city=50,000 to 1,000,000 population
mega_city=1,000,000 to 10,000,000 population
super_city=10,000,000 and greater population
Again, these are rough, but they would promote better rendering of
super and mega cities (only) at low zoom levels. And because there
are a relatively small number of super and mega cities, it wouldn't
take that long to "promote" their tags from the existing city value.
These tags would work worldwide, and are a relatively simple change
to most renderers. Sure, we can keep existing population values
(where they have been entered), but they haven't in a lot of places,
and this seems a simpler method.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us