Proposal talk:Metropolis
- i don't think this differentiation is neccessary at all. we have
population=*from which a renderer or any other application could get all the information to render an inhabited area accordingly. so we could reduce it toplace=inhabitatedandpopulation=*xylome 06:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the current place classification is too coarse and in general find the proposal useful. I would like to suggest a couple of changes to make the scheme more consistent. First of all I propose to change "smallcity" to "largetown". I have some mental problems associating a place with 15000 people with the term "city". Secondly, why not also create a "largevillage" class such that "village" is used for places < 1500 people and "largevillage" for places with 1500 - 5000 people. At the other end of the scale we could even have a "largemetropolis" class for the really huge megacities, e.g with more than 2 million people. Would such a fine classification be too complex? To xylome: It is right that the render *could* get the information from the population tag. AFAIK none of the renders currently use this information, however. And what about all the populated places having no population tag? Such place names would not be rendered at all. I also believe it is harder (more CPU intensive) for a render to detect in which range a given population=* value belongs than just to lookup a given place=* value (not that I know whether this is an issue). Polderrunner 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)