PopSpot — Iceland

PopSpot

Iceland

OpenStreetMap · place= population tag analysis

▲ Upgrade candidates · 7 ▼ Downgrade candidates · 4 ◎ Monitor · 3 Generated · 2026-04-04 09:48 UTC

Disclaimer

Whether a settlement is a village, town, or city depends on a mix of factors — population, character, local identity, available services, and geographic context — none of which point to a single clear answer. Areas near larger settlements may function as suburbs or neighbourhoods rather than distinct places, while remote settlements often feel more significant than raw numbers suggest. Since reasonable mappers frequently disagree on these judgements, any classification changes should be made thoughtfully and with awareness of local context.

Population Distribution

Population distribution by place type for Iceland. Dots show individual tagged places, with the maximum, minimum, and median population values highlighted.

Population distribution plot for Iceland

Upgrade Candidates

Places whose population is more consistent with the next-higher type's distribution than their own. Ranked by signal strength, then percentile within current type.

#	Name	Type	Population	Own %ile	%ile among next higher	Signal	Edit	OSM
1	Kópavogur	town	40,040	100%	50%	Strong	iD JOSM Level0	node/2171340646
2	Álftanes	village	2,690	100%	65%	Strong	iD JOSM Level0	node/2918048188
3	Hafnarfjörður	town	31,525	98%	50%	Strong	iD JOSM Level0	node/2171372991
4	Reykjanesbær	town	22,499	95%	50%	Strong	iD JOSM Level0	node/129958272
5	Garðabær	town	17,372	92%	0%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/2171340641
6	Keflavík	town	15,000	90%	0%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/2876969801
7	Mosfellsbær	town	13,353	88%	0%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/2171340649

Downgrade Candidates

Places whose population is more consistent with the next-lower type's distribution than their own. Ranked by signal strength, then percentile within current type.

#	Name	Type	Population	Own %ile	%ile among next lower	Signal	Edit	OSM
1	Vopnafjörður	town	519	2%	85%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/59860048
2	Seyðisfjörður	town	655	5%	95%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/249086462
3	Patreksfjörður	town	715	8%	95%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/242958931
4	Fáskrúðsfjörður	town	723	10%	97%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/256612045

Monitor

Places that are consistent with their current type's distribution but sit at an extreme percentile within it. No reclassification signal yet, but worth revisiting as more population data is tagged.

#	Name	Type	Population	Own %ile	Edit	OSM
1	Vík	village	720	97%	iD JOSM Level0	node/59861511
2	Eyrarbakki	village	623	95%	iD JOSM Level0	node/192291473
3	Grundarhverfi	village	614	92%	iD JOSM Level0	node/378506691

Step 1 — Log-normal distribution fit

For each place type (city, town, village), a log-normal distribution is fitted to the population values tagged in OSM. Specifically, the mean and standard deviation of log₁₀(population) are computed, giving each type its own statistical fingerprint.

Step 2 — Log-likelihood ratio (LLR)

Each place is scored under its own type's distribution and under each adjacent type's distribution. A positive LLR means the place's population fits the neighbouring type's distribution better than its own — a statistical signal of potential misclassification. If both adjacent types fire simultaneously, the stronger LLR determines the flag direction.

Step 3 — Percentile corroboration

The LLR signal is cross-checked against percentile ranks: where does this place sit within its own type, and where would it land in the target type? Both signals must agree for a candidate to be rated Strong.

Confidence tiers

Badge	Direction	Criteria (all must hold)
Strong	Upgrade	LLR > 1.0 · own percentile ≥ 75th · target percentile 20–65th
Strong	Downgrade	LLR > 1.0 · own percentile ≤ 25th · target percentile 35–80th
Weak	Either	LLR > 0, but one or more Strong conditions not met
Monitor	—	No LLR signal, but own percentile ≥ 90th (top) or ≤ 10th (bottom)

Why extremes are excluded from Strong

The target-type percentile window deliberately excludes both tails. A place landing below the 20th percentile among the target type would be marginal even there — a weak fit. A place landing above the 65th percentile in the target type is unusually large even for that category, suggesting the reclassification destination may be wrong (should jump two levels) or the tag is erroneous. The middle range confirms the place would be a natural, unremarkable member of the target type — the hallmark of a genuine misclassification.

Table sort order

Within each section, Strong candidates always appear before Weak ones. Within each confidence tier, upgrade candidates are sorted by own-type percentile descending (most overqualified first) and downgrade candidates by own-type percentile ascending (most underqualified first). Monitor entries are sorted by own-type percentile descending.

Statistical flags are prompts for investigation, not conclusions. Place hierarchy in OSM reflects infrastructure, administrative status, and regional importance — population alone cannot capture that.