2014-07-14 21:38 GMT+02:00 Christian Quest <cqu...@openstreetmap.fr>:
> Not worse than the current osm.org rendering... but I agree that it is > weird ;) > agreed (besides the z<5 for NE and class 0, which looks more or less reasonable to me) > It is not catched by my query because there is no capital=* tag on it. > Albany is the state capital (something I've just learned thanks to WP). So > more tags may be useful to catch these major places. > yes, other things could be: administrative importance besides capital (seat of important institutions and companies, seat of government, ...), airports and ports, road and railway connections, famous monuments, libraries, universities, zoos, museums, stock exchange, courts, ... > There are two tags on the NYC place=* node: importance=international and > rank=0. > > importance=* is a proposed tag since 2009, with 700+ occurences. > rank=* is not documented in the wiki and currently have 600 occurences. > There is a proposal for rank: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/new_place_values but it is outdated in this form (should not be strictly linked to population otherwise it would be pointless). I have proposed this some years ago, and used it for some time in my own rendering, but after a while gave up because people hacked it continuously (despite the lack of visibility of my map ;-) ). I think this is something that can be done by analyzing the data "intelligently" up to a certain level of certainty, but might still require some manual fix and adjustments in exceptional cases. Still this analysis will require some ressources and could unlikely be done on a dynamic dataset (i.e. preprocessing and hooking the updated results from time to time similar to coastline). > For place=* nodes rank=0 has 135 occurences, with a lot of then in > Lituania and several too in Brazil... to avoid too many false positive, it > need to be limited to place=city > yes, the idea of rank was to give a relative scale within the same place-value, so you can't compare rank=0 of a village to that of a city. > > Given the emptyness of the area around Clermont-Ferrand, and Brive, it is > quite logical to get them on the map. They are the "major" cities in the > area ;) > > > San Francisco is hard to find, L.A. doesn't appear before zoom 10 (but is >> hard to spot due to its brevity), and spelled out at zoom 11. >> >> But also in Europe there are some serious problems, e.g. Zurich (typical >> hard case, OK) isn't there at zoom6, unlike "Clermont-Ferrand", >> "Brive-la-Gaillarde", or the famous "Ebingen" on the Swabian Alb ;-) >> >> > Zurich... admin_centre:4=yes, a tag you'll find only in Switzerland... no > capital/is_capital/importance/rank... > well, Zurich has its importance not because of the administrative (government) status, but because of the many banks, the stock exchange, its science community (and the cultural life). We need a default uniform tagging scheme, then update OSM. capital=* + > importance=* should be enough, with population to provide a sort order to > help text placements for similar capital/importance values. > importance is like rank, it can be disputed and it is not clear, on what aspects the importance is based on. I'd rather like to see an importance for several properties / fields. > > importance maybe have different subjects attached to it. > For example, importance:religion=international/national/regional so Mecca > or Lourdes may be promoted on some maps but at least data is there. > +1, and maybe even more diverse (e.g a scale from 1 to 1000 or allowing fractions, so later adjustments (compared to something else) can be easily applied). > > The only problem may be a new kind of vandalism based on these tags... > yes, it's not the only problem, but could be a major one (I have also seen this for tourism=attraction occassionally). > > Maybe we should switch to the tagging list ;) > +1 cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
