Changeset: 43842658
Added population to some towns in Germany
Closed by yasio90
Tags
created_by | iD 2.0.1 |
---|---|
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/id |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | pl-PL |
Discussion
-
Comment from glglgl
Nur einen Fall hersusgreifend: Bezieht sich die 19100 bei Püttlingen (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3121123201) auf die Stadt Püttlingen (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1184883) oder deren Hauptort (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4536912)?
-
Comment from SammysHP
Aus welcher Quelle stammen denn die Daten? Zumindest für Celle (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/27299841) sind die Daten definitiv falsch.
-
Comment from SammysHP
Sorry, here's a translation of my previous comment:
Can you please tell us the source of the data? At least the population value of Celle [1] is wrong. I can find only one source [2] with this value. It references the census of 2011, but with a wrong number. The correct value is in [3].
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/27299841
[2] https://www.citypopulation.de/php/germany-settlements-niedersachsen.php?cityid=03351006_0
[3] https://www.celle.de/PDF/Bev%C3%B6lkerungsstand_31_12_2011_Celle_Stadt.PDF?ObjSvrID=2092&ObjID=1533&ObjLa=1&Ext=PDF&WTR=1&_ts= -
Comment from yasio90
Yes, I use this citypopulation site. I saw that sometimes towns or cities have a number of population of whole aglomeration/municipality/commune and sometimes there is a population only of the main city, not including this smaller towns near suburbs
-
Comment from SammysHP
I'm not sure if the license of that source is compatible with OSM.
https://www.citypopulation.de/termsofuse.html
Because of these two issues (wrong data and incompatible license) all changesets that use this data should be reverted.
-
Comment from glglgl
Generally, I think that it would be better to add a link to the corresponding Wikipedia page (or even better: wikidata object) to every administrative relation (not to the place tags, as this is sometimes ambiguous) and to have people needing the (constantly changing) population by other means.
-
Comment from glglgl
Maybe adding another ID, such as id:citypopulation=10045112_0Y4B, would be helpful then IF it was announced beforehand in a correct way.
-
Comment from glglgl
Let alone the fact that the results of that site are quite inexact. They ignore the one or other settlement and combine other settlements which shouldn't be, from an administrative point of view.
-
Comment from SammysHP
WRT relation: For example Celle already has the polulation in its relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1797918
Nodes (1-20 of 26)
- 1
- 2
- Tiengen (281028926), v10
- Springe (2820353920), v3
- Pulheim (2979014340), v3
- Brake (Unterweser) (140482585), v14
- Nottuln (2648542095), v2
- Aschersleben (87191876), v9
- Benrath (1606676845), v5
- Püttlingen (3121123201), v5
- Rheindahlen (59970201), v12
- Rheydt (72609503), v11
- Ronsdorf (268017609), v8
- Hausham (543723780), v5
- Südliches Anhalt (1839793917), v8
- Werden (255093956), v13
- Erbach (321681855), v8
- Wipperfürth (263831309), v10
- Bad Schwalbach (1673424432), v4
- Bad Nenndorf (240023280), v9
- Ascheberg (240086913), v7
- Uerdingen (1831895035), v6
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |