On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:16 PM, sly (sylvain letuffe) <li...@letuffe.org> wrote: > > The problem I see with actual place usage is that it is not > standardazided world wide and serves merly for writing a label on a map. > > It makes it quite hard for newcomers to guess in wich case they should use > wich place, and that proposal tries to help have a first easy step to record > at least a population estimation.
Please compare this situation to what happened recently with the meaning of highway=*. Do you think highway=* tags are used to "tag for the renderer"? In some ways, yes, they are. But more specifically, highway=* tags are "a very general and sometimes vague description of the importance of the highway for the road grid." I think place=* is designed to serve a similar purpose - "importance" in the "urban texture". > On jeudi 27 mai 2010, Roy Wallace wrote: >> I like your motivation. But maybe it's not necessary. Using >> population=* achieves the same goal. > > Yes it does, and it does much more precisely, this is the utimate solution. > Unfortunetly, having access to this information is much harder when you are > driving your car thru, than a rough estimate that gives you the "approximate > size of a hamlet" (I have to admit that the upper part of the scale is kind > of useless as population data is much easier to get in those cases) If you CAN estimate the population, use population=*. If you CAN'T estimate the population, then - with your proposal - you can't decide the value of place=*, anyway. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
