[Talk-us] Correct source for population=* tags on US metropolitan cities

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 12:51 2021-01-10, Joseph Eisenberg đã viết:
> /Re: "place POIs are commonly tagged with wikidata=* and website=* tags 
> that should probably
> be different from the ones on the administrative boundary."/
> 
> Thank you for mentioning this. I also think that wikidata= and website= 
> tags should go on the appropriate municipality boundary feature, if they 
> represent the municipality rather than the place.
> 
> Wikipedia articles often mention both the municipality and the metro 
> area - for example the wikipedia article for Portland mentions the area 
> of the city and the area of the urbanized area, and has the population 
> for the municipality and the population of the metro area. This seems to 
> be standard practice for large us cities, so it might be ok to link the 
> wikipedia article with the place=city node.
> 
> I don't use wikidata much, but it seems like there should be separate 
> wikidata objects for 1) the downtown/historic center 2) the municipality 
> 3) the urbanized area 4) the metropolitan area 5) the combined 
> statistical area (if present), no?

Yes, each of these things can and should be represented by separate 
items. My impression is that, in the U.S., (3) is very rare while (4) 
and (5) need quite a bit of cleanup. There's also a (6) for the human 
settlement, which is probably the most common of any of these concepts 
in Wikidata (and still distinct from either a CDP or an urban cluster). 
Most MSAs have an item at this point, but many CSAs are still conflated 
with the MSA items due to the CSA being little more than a footnote in 
the MSA's Wikipedia article.

> /Re: "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana. Long Beach and Santa Ana would 
> still be affected by population fragmentation within Orange County. For 
> San Francisco-Oakland, San Francisco would get the overall urbanized 
> area population, while Oakland..."/
> 
> In my experience (I have lived in Berkeley next to Oakland, Long Beach, 
> Irvine next to Santa Aana, and San Diego, and frequently visit Castro 
> Valley and Pleasanton and San Mateo in the San Francisco area), people 
> who live in Orange County do not consider themselves to live in Santa 
> Ana unless they live in the city limits. "Orange County" is the term 
> they use to describe the place where they live when talking to people 
> from outside of the local region, though they might say "Los Angeles" to 
> someone across the country or from another country.
> 
> People who live right next to Long Beach might say they live in Long 
> Beach if they are in Signal Hill, Hawaiian Gardens or one of the small 
> unincorporated areas, but the name does not extend much beyond that.
> 
> Similarly, no one in Berkeley thinks they live in the "Oakland area", 
> but just the (San Francisco) "Bay Area" or perhaps "In San Francisco" to 
> non-Californians. Therefore I think it is fine if Oakland, San Jose, 
> Long Beach, Santa Ana and other "edge cities" get just the population 
> within their municipal boundaries.
> 
> Practically, when trying to properly geocode searches, or design 
> low-zoom-level maps, edge cities and suburbs are going to get merged or 
> crowded out by the central city.
> 
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> PS: (San Jose is an annoying special case since it is considered a 
> separate metro area by the Census, but we will have to live with that)

If we're going to conjoin San José to San Francisco-Oakland, San José 
would be the central city, being the far more populous city. So we'd tag 
San José with the Bay Area's urban population and relegate San Francisco 
to the same secondary treatment that's being proposed for Oakland. It 
would be surprising to everyone, except those of us who live in the 
South Bay who like to brag about San José's population. ;-)

I've created Wikidata items for each of the urbanized areas and urban 
clusters in the San Francisco Bay Area. https://w.wiki/ttC queries 
Wikidata for them and categorizes them by MSA, so you can get a better 
sense of how it's broken down.

Would we stop at San José or also include the Gilroy-Morgan Hill, 
Hollister, and Merced urbanized areas? What other exceptions would we 
make, and on what basis? We may be able to get away with substituting 
on-the-ground verifiable facts with published census figures, but I'm 
concerned that bespoke demography is far enough outside this project's 
core competencies to cause endless back-and-forth debate.

(By the way, the San Francisco Bay Area is named after the San Francisco 
Bay, not the city. I do tell people back east that I live "near San 
Francisco" -- where "near" barely exceeds the IRS's official threshold 
for a commute -- but only to correct the assumption that I'm near Los 
Angeles.)

-- 
minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us