View source for Forum:Federal States/Cities and Population

<div class="forumheader" style="margin: 1; background-color: #eeeeee; text-align: left; padding: 5px;">'''[[Forum:Index|Forums]] &rarr; [[Forum:Federal States|Federal States]] &rarr; {{PAGENAME}}'''</div>[[Category:Federal States forum posts]]

<!-- Write below this line, please. -->

Wanted to kick off a basic conversation about two separate but related issues with FSA cities. See the sections below. -[[User:TheMayor|TheMayor]] ([[User talk:TheMayor|talk]]) 16:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

==Population Tags==
Looking around the FSA at some major cities like [https://opengeofiction.net/node/128252214 Saint Jacobs] and [https://opengeofiction.net/node/109891286 Warwick], it’s a bit unclear if the population tag is for the city proper or for the metropolitan region as a whole. I know we’ve talked about this in the past, but I think we should determine a national standard as to whether the population tag should apply to only the city proper or for the larger metro area. There’s I think a good argument for either direction (tagging the city proper population can easily be universally applied, but since the population tag affects how labels render at lower zooms using regional population may make the map easier to navigate and better shows the major metro areas of the FSA). It’s also worth noting that using regional population would require setting a lower bound of what constitutes a metro area subject to that rule. I’m interested in what other stateowners think and which standard we should try to apply. -[[User:TheMayor|TheMayor]] ([[User talk:TheMayor|talk]]) 16:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
:I think I've mentioned this before, but having a tag for metro populations (applied to cities along with the city bounds populations) would be quite useful for cataloguing our population centers. --[[User:Fluffr Nuttr|Fluffr Nuttr]] ([[User talk:Fluffr Nuttr|talk]]) 12:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
::I tend to be in the 'tagging should mean something specific' camp, so I think the tag <code>population=*</code> should be reserved explicitly for the population of the cities themselves. That would keep the meaning in tact and consistent throughout from largest cities down to the smallest towns. I do think that metropolitan area tagging is relevant, however, and would suggest doing something like <code>population:metro=*</code> instead. This can be easily checked in Overpass and sorted on tables for those that care about both functions. The question becomes, however, what the defined limits of the metropolitan area are. It may be prudent to allow users to define MSAs with a boundary relation and then put <code>population=*</code> on that, since it would be a consistent use of the tag and allow people to see where the metropolitan area limits are defined in a way that is meaningful when rendered on wiki maps or viewing through overpass. &mdash; [[User:Alessa|Alessa]] <sub>([[User talk:Alessa|talk]])</sub> 13:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
:::I agree, if we do tag metro populations it should be in addition to city-proper population tagging. Population=* tags should only include the population of whatever the boundary describes. -[[User:TheMayor|TheMayor]] ([[User talk:TheMayor|talk]]) 14:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

==Canon List of Major Cities==
Over the past several years, we’ve collectively made great strides with mapping the nation as a whole. Even though there are plenty of vacant states these days, I think that in most regions, there’s a good consensus about which established cities should be considered regional centers, and even in states that have turned over there are city locations that have been acting as placeholders suitable for future major cities. What I’d like to discuss is if we think we have enough major cities either mapped or planned that we could compile a list of “top 25” largest cities in the FSA. This list doesn’t have to be complete; I think it should leave some gaps for future mappers (similar to the gaps in our list of Presidents) that allow future mappers the potential to add their cities.
There are, of course, a number of issues with doing something like this, in no particular order:
* How do we determine where the gaps are?
* Do future mappers need to be “approved” to take a spot on the list?
* How do we handle abandoned cities?
* What level of mapping detail would qualify a city for the list?
* Or do the city sites get chosen regionally/nationally and a city becomes “canon” even if it isn’t well mapped (e.g. Esperanza)?
Despite the challenges I think it’d be a worthwhile exercise, both internally (e.g., how to better plan highways and railways) and externally (where other countries fly into the FSA, placing consulates, etc.) Interested in other thoughts. -[[User:TheMayor|TheMayor]] ([[User talk:TheMayor|talk]]) 16:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
:Hmmm. We may be able to start on a list, with the amount of occupied states and established regional canons.
: A proposal to start off discussion: Focus the conversation of metro populations. Regions get together to determine their region's biggest metros and add hem to the list. No specific ranks should be reserved for brand new metros, since IMO that limits new mappers. However, if a state is vacated, the effected region should be able to reserve a specific ranking on the list for it with an estimated population, which can be changed once the state is claimed. Here, the boundary between a "new" metro and a "re-established" metro should be determined primarily by 1) location and 2) change in amount of metros within a state.  Because some regions are more than half vacant, there should be spots reserved for metros in those regions above some population, not in the form of a specific rank. However, a cap on cities above a certain population may be appropriate (something within the top 5 cities). --[[User:Fluffr Nuttr|Fluffr Nuttr]] ([[User talk:Fluffr Nuttr|talk]]) 13:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
::I think it is fine to establish that Esperanza and Stanton are reserved as the top two spots in canon, full stop. After that, I do like the idea of regional discussion, and I also like the idea of not reserving specific rank spots. Regions can evolve more naturally that way and allows for cities to come and go as users do. The bigger problem is not going to go away, however. I foresee this being a perpetual issue for as long as the project exists. &mdash; [[User:Alessa|Alessa]] <sub>([[User talk:Alessa|talk]])</sub> 13:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
:::The only potential issue I see involves mappers who aren’t active in terms of regional collaboration. I’m all for starting at the regional level though and seeing what kind of progress we can make from there. -[[User:TheMayor|TheMayor]] ([[User talk:TheMayor|talk]]) 14:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)