[OSM-talk] Part-municipalities and more place issues

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Dec 30, 2007 2:21 PM, Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please not another tag..... "population" already exists as does
> > place=town/city/foo. Let's use those.
>
> Sure, but if it exists, why not use it then to render it on maps? And if
> we can have that, why do we still need all the different
> city/town/village tags to distinguish them (other than for those where
> no population is available)?

Because there are more features to a town than the population. For
example: capitals. A capital city is not necessarily the largest. e.g
Canberra in AU, which is number 8. As a capital it should be displayed
first, possibly with a different font. The population is irrelevent.
Similarly, I can imagine the are places where the largest city of a
(deel)gemeente is not the one it is named after. In that case the
larger one should not appear first.

On the other side you may have towns which may not be any larger in
population that the surrounding towns, yet be more "important" in some
way (regional hub). Population is not the deciding factor.

> * Keep tagging the part-municipalities like town/village with the usual
> agreements (> 10.000 = town etc.) (by discarding the fact that they
> belong to municipalities)

Tagging by size is only a recmmmendation. There are exceptions, like I
indicated above.

The suggestion of someone else to tag the boundaries with
boundary=administrative and a higher admin_level is a good idea, and
make it orthoginal to the actual towns/cities inside them

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog at gmail.com> http://svana.org/kleptog/