Proposal:China population
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| china population | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Rejected (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | 快乐的老鼠宝宝 |
| Tagging: | china_population=* |
| Applies to: | 
|
| Definition: | Key for storing population data to avoid highlighting county-level cities in China |
| Statistics: |
|
| Vote start: | 2021-08-26 |
| Vote end: | 2021-09-10 |
Result
 | Every china_population=* has been removed in changeset 111043870 |
This proposal has 5 Approves and 17 oppose in total.
The Description tag such aspopulation:note=县级行政区不要填population... will be soon removed.
Background
OpenStreetMap默认渲染方式osm-carto中，会将人口＞40万的city节点突出显示。按照此种渲染方式，中国将会有许多县级城市也突出显示，容易与地级市混淆。 因此此前有人将县级的population标签全部更换为china_population，避免县级突出显示干扰地级市的显示。而这一标签因为干扰到了osm的标签规则，且是为了渲染而更改标签，属于破坏数据，已经被人退回。 为了寻求社群意见，下面的链接中是对于该标签处理意见的讨论，烦请各位参与。
详情：Zh-hans:Key:china_population
OSM-carto, the default rendering style of OpenStreetMap, highlights city nodes with population > 400,000. According to this style, there will be many counties and county-level cities in China also highlighted, which will be easily confused with prefecture-level cities. Therefore, some people have previously replaced all county-level nodes' population=* with china_population=* to avoid county-level highlighting interfering with the display of prefecture-level cities. population=* was returned because it interfered with the osm labeling rules and was changed for rendering purposes, which is damaging data. In order to form a community consensus, the following is a vote on the handling of this tag, please participate in.
More: Key:china_population
对中国“市”建制不了解的可以查看中国城市沿革。
You could look at History of Chinese "Cities" for more information about "city" in China.
Voting
I approve this proposal.--Chinen Sieru (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. 不支持为渲染而建的冗余tag。population在目前的carto里用来计算显示重要性，因此大城市要写population，小城镇区要写china_popluation，将有一系列规则。易混淆易改错，容易被改回。此外china_class已经足以解决渲染问题。因此此标签与population和china_class都有冲突 Strongwillow (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. 反对tagging for render，而且还把通用的population标签去除，严重影响了数据质量，属于破坏数据的行为。建议要么让osm-carto根据当地情况分区域渲染，要么将city的population标签修改为市区城镇人口（即城区人口）。 --Mahajana (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- {suggestion}数据都是大约摸的，真要精确还得wikipedia提供接口或者是集体从七普结果导入一边，现在谈数据质量就是笑话
- I oppose this proposal. 反对，虽然我也觉得有助于使地图美观，但这违反了 tagging for render 这一通用准则。我们mapper维护的是数据，而不是地图本身。试想：比如我需要下载OSM数据库统计每个国家人口数大于100,000的城市数量，如果我修改了 population=* 的数据就无法得到正确的结果。建议先在OSM-carto上提issue，OSM-carto的维护者目前应该已经了意识到这这一问题。目前按 population=* 渲染的规则也是其他社区mapper不断和 osm-carto 作者反馈的结果，我觉得我们也可以他们先争取一下。TerryZhang (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. 建议在OSM-carto的修改之前，删除掉节点所对应的人口信息，并改在该关系中体现，不建议为了纯粹的渲染在标签上使用更多的情况，这样对于数据使用者来说是一件不太好的事情，所以最好的建议是首要是改渲染，其次是使用关系不让它渲染（针对某些慵懒的情况）。Herman Lee Zh (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. 恕我直言让carto为了中特色而修改渲染规则是几乎不可能的事情，对此怀疑的可以去github提个issues看看怎么回复的。TerryZhang提到的issuse只是渲染未按照人口优先的问题，实际上还是遵循了人口优先的规则，并非中国的行政级别优先。tagging for render在中国早已不少见，如果完全按照通行规则，我们甚至会看不到任何一个县（参见台闽地区，县只是place=county）。然而对于中国人而言，县则是十分重要的不可忽略的一个地名。当前中国的县普遍采用县城标记place=city且名称为县的方式，这本身就是“破坏数据”，明明不是城市的诸多地方被标记成为城市、县城作为县，对于数据用户而言难道这不是一种“破坏”？至于下载osm数据统计城市人口就更是无稽之谈，中国采用特色的超级广域市制度，一个“市”宣称的人口本就是远远大于真正的城市人口，对于许多市而言其宣称人口相比于城市人口差距可以达到一个数量级（当然，许多中国人真的以为中国的城市就是“大”啊，中国一个县级市比外国首都还大，这就是超广域市带来的缪误）。遗憾的是，为了符合绝大多数中国人的看图习惯，只能违背osm的通行规则，同时为了弥补数据损失，以此Key:china_class作为补充描述、以Key:china_population来记录人口数据。如果不tagging for render，那么就会出现看不到县和自治州等、乡镇大于市区、一些低级行政区大于高级行政区等一系列问题。
此外Herman Lee Zh投的是反对，但是他的观点是前三位反对者和支持者都反对的（请您快点坐到主席台上来×大雾）（建议和前三位反对者先打一架×）。 Jyunhou (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jyunhou: Jyunhou同学您可能理解错了我的意思：您似乎很长一段论证了是否需要按行政级别的顺序渲染地图、强制突出渲染县级区划，这一点我的看法跟您是一样的，我举双手双脚赞成（参见我之前回复的第一句话）。但我想突出的重点是：为了达到这一目的，不应该在tagging上动歪脑筋，真正出了问题需要解决的的是osm-carto的渲染程序。这一点在技术上并不是一件困难的事情，比CJK中日字形问题要好解决很多：这个只影响到含有key:china_class属性的少数几个item，只需要加入一个clause就可以了。我觉得更好的解决方法是我们团结一致努力说服osm-carto的作者，让他们能够意识到这一渲染程序在中国社区造成的困扰。TerryZhang (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jyunhou: 尽管如您所言，中国的行政建制市不包括县，然而，在地理上，中国的大多数县都可达到城市的标准，并且，类似于建制市，县名具有行政区与城市的双重含义（至于县城的node是否应该带「县」则有待商榷）。台湾的县驻地为市，县是纯粹的行政区划，县辖市才是城市；而大陆的县城却不能只视为驻地的镇，在中国存在大量的城关镇、城厢镇，这意味着这些县城驻地的镇无法脱离县独立存在，另一些县则是将行政建制镇析置了街道，视镇为城更是无从谈起。自治州、地区、盟仅仅是行政区划而不是城市，标注为place=city是不恰当的，其最合适的出现方式是作为行政区的渲染。Lepus (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lepus: 您说得对，中国的“县”具有行政区与居民点的双重含义。但是我称之为“居民点”而不是“城市”。诚然，仅按县城人口来讲，许多县城足以称之为城市，然而“城市”的概念，除了人口之外还要求“工商业较为发达的地区”、“有较完善的公共卫生设备、公用事业、土地规划、住宅及运输系统”（引自zhwiki，enwiki大意同）。中国大陆地区仍然处于发展中状态，因此许多县城依然不能称之为城市；相比之下台湾地区早已进入发达状态，所以许多县城都已经成为城市（不过一些纯政治因素而升格为县辖市的我不认同，点名批评朴子镇、太保乡）。如果从遵从官方认定来说，那县城（乡、镇、街道）更加和城市没有什么关系了。总而言之，许多县城还不能成为真正的城市。但是，如果想要中国的具有行政区与居民点的双重含义的县以一个醒目的点渲染出来，只能标记为city、town（更低级就不用考虑了）。标记为town符合其居民点的真实情况（乡、镇、街道（勉强算）），但是这将会区分不开非县城乡镇和县城本身。而标记为city其实也是一种tagging for render。虽然很无奈，但也目前来说也就只能这样做了.Jyunhou (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. This is tagging for the renderer. Furthermore, this proposal does not seem to follow the procedure outlined in the proposal process, or even use its templates. This looks like an attempt to vote for this issue with only mappers involved in or hailing from China (although a mail to the Tagging Mailinglist may still be forthcoming). However, because of the rather large consequences of forcing through a country-specific tag only because rendering is broken, I would strongly caution against going this route. Try to involve the global community to aid in solving the actual issue, rather than Balkanize (
巴尔干化) OpenStreetMap. This should be solved at the renderer-level first. --JeroenHoek (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. not announced on tagging mailing list, blatant tagging for the renderer, encourages removal of correct tags Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. same as Mateusz --Polarbear w (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The root cause of the bad rendering in osm-carto is that the place tag is being used in a way that does not correspond to how the rest of the world uses it. Please fix the place tag instead and the rendering will sort itself out. Adding a China-specific tag to work around the rendering just forces every other data user in the world to introduce a special rule for China. That is not acceptable. Lonvia (talk)
- @Lonvia:这个问题的根源是渲染问题，如果渲染问题解决了，OSMcarto在中国地区的渲染可以按照行政等级来，我们可以放弃china_population这个tag，继续在population中维护正常数据。但这需要OSMCarto的支持，而如您所见，OSMCarto对任何提议都不积极。祝您也有一段被OSMCarto拒绝PR的经历。--快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. same as Mateusz and Lonvia.. --Penegal (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Country-specific tags, eg police:FR=* (in a proper format as population:CN=*, which the invention here doesn't show a special census definition for PRC either), or place:PH=* in a formally documented Proposed features/Philippines-specific place types, are used to tentatively supplement standard ones for a specific purpose. Not replace them, let alone for Tagging For Renderer. ---- Kovposch (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- The spelling for Country-specific tags maybe changes, thanks your advice. --快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. For the same reason as Mahajana and others. --Dafadllyn (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. same as above --Famlam (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The rendering problem should be mitigated by only using place=city to represent an urban population center (城), not a municipality (市). Also, if openstreetmap-carto's styling rules are particularly unsuitable for mainland China, consider developing a local renderer. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. This is tagging for the render, which I do not support. -BubbaJuice (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I second Mateusz' comment. This does not belong in OSM. Next time follow the guidelines we have. --501ghost (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- 我可以给carto提一个PR引入china_class，类似 maps.tracestrack.com的做法。但carto的现在的维护者似乎很保守什么都不想改。不过可以试一下 Strongwillow (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Where it it is necessary to distinguish between the population of the urban center and the administrative unit is necessary, a country neutral tagging should be used. --Lkw (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Databases should not be modified to accommodate something that is actionable possible with the current data model. This would establish a new unneeded tag. Lectrician1 (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)