Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add and seed a City resource. #93

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 28, 2024
Merged

Add and seed a City resource. #93

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 28, 2024

Conversation

wintermeyer
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@wintermeyer wintermeyer merged commit 493f5d9 into main Feb 28, 2024
2 checks passed
@wintermeyer wintermeyer deleted the feature/phone-number branch February 28, 2024 18:16
@philipp-kempgen
Copy link
Collaborator

Late to the party, but are you sure "cities" is a good term here?
Is it meant to also include "towns" and "villages"?
I think I would use "municipalities", which I think comes closer to the meaning of German "Orte".
(I'd use an abbreviation such as "municips" or something.)

Or maybe use "locations", if you want to include not only cities/towns/villages but also locations such as a mountain top.

"Municipality" describes an area. "Location" is more something like a point resp. coordinates.

@philipp-kempgen
Copy link
Collaborator

Side note: I think that "zip code" is a US-only term.
It gets you into the muddy waters regarding census-designated places, unincorporated areas and US Postal Service designations that many people outside of the US would probably find hard to understand.
Keep in mind that there are even settlements without a zip code.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire,_Nevada )
I'd use "postal code" as a generic term.

Then again, it's probably not worth changing.

@wintermeyer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Late to the party, but are you sure "cities" is a good term here?

cities is good for now. I see your point but we can fix that in the future.

@wintermeyer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Then again, it's probably not worth changing.

No, not now. Probably not ever.

@philipp-kempgen
Copy link
Collaborator

In the end it boils down too what you want to happen when someone enters e.g. "Hennickendorf" (478 inhabitants) as their location. It's part of the "Nuthe-Urstromtal" municipality (340 km2, postal code 14947, less than 7000 inhabitants). There aren't any cities. "Ruhlsdorf" would be the political center, but it has even less inhabitants (359).

Someone in Hennickendorf could be displayed as being located "near Ruhlsdorf" ("in Ruhlsdorf" would be wrong) or "near Luckenwalde", but Luckenwalde isn't part of the municipality. The latter still makes sense.

I think the proper way is to display the name of the municipality "Nuthe-Urstromtal". Just keep in mind that there's no city/town/village called "Nuthe-Urstromtal".

Granted you might call those edge cases, as between 70 and 80 % of the German population live in or around cities, but:

  • "around cities" doesn't mean "in cities", i.e. different postal code.
  • That's still some 20 to 25 million people who don't live in or around cities.
  • I have no idea if these people might be less interesting as users, demographically, or even more interesting.

Up to you to decide how much thought to spend here to make later improvements easier.

@wintermeyer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Up to you to decide how much thought to spend here to make later improvements easier.

Done is better than perfect.

Let's go with the current implementation and cycle back in a couple of months.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants