PopSpot — Malta

PopSpot

Malta

OpenStreetMap · place= population tag analysis

▲ Upgrade candidates · 9 ▼ Downgrade candidates · 5 ◎ 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 Malta. Dots show individual tagged places, with the maximum, minimum, and median population values highlighted.

Population distribution plot for Malta

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	Il-Mellieħa	village	10,087	100%	43%	Strong	iD JOSM Level0	node/130923717
2	Ħal Tarxien	village	8,583	97%	36%	Strong	iD JOSM Level0	node/599173875
3	Is-Siġġiewi	village	8,367	94%	36%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/130887108
4	Ħal Luqa	village	6,162	91%	21%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/130903626
5	Il-Gżira	town	8,029	36%	100%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/130868022
6	Raħal Ġdid	town	7,864	32%	100%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/130898763
7	Is-Swieqi	town	7,749	29%	100%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/130875582
8	L-Imsida	town	7,623	25%	100%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/130880844
9	Bormla	town	5,395	21%	0%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/130931433

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	L-Imdina	town	292	4%	0%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/4224194638
2	Ta' Xbiex	town	1,846	7%	20%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/130864306
3	Il-Furjana	town	2,205	11%	29%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/129953376
4	Il-Birgu	town	2,629	14%	34%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/2522930881
5	Pembroke	town	3,645	18%	71%	Weak	iD JOSM Level0	node/130913962

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	Birkirkara	town	22,247	100%	iD JOSM Level0	node/130878486
2	San Pawl il-Baħar	town	21,046	96%	iD JOSM Level0	node/1501825792
3	Il-Mosta	town	20,241	93%	iD JOSM Level0	node/130878149

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.