On 12/5/13 9:16 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2013/12/4 Greg Troxel <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Thanks for the explanation. Given that, village as admin_level=10 > (or 9 > if you want) sounds like exactly the right thing for me. > Perhaps rendering will need to catch up. > what i've seen of the places import from 2008 TIGER has cities, villages and cdps at admin level 8. i'm not claiming that's right, but it is what's out there. i've ended up putting NY towns in at 7, which i'm not entirely happy about. counties in NY are tiled by cities and towns, and villages are below towns (although not always completely contained in a single town.) i'd almost suggest a rethink, although there would be a bit of effort to actually change things afterwards. > > > This was interesting to read. Villages as a political entity in > Vermont > seem far more firmly established than in Mass. > > > > admin_level and boundary=administrative are tags for administrative > classification, don't confuse this with "place=village" as geographic > class for a type of human settlements independent from administrative > structure (they may coincide but they do not have to, there doesn't > need to be a dedicated administrative entity for a settlement in order > to merit a place tag). a lot of these terms have defined meanings legally in the US, although they vary from state to state. towns and villages in NY are distinct, legal entities, but hamlets are just well recognized place names. if i cross the border into MA or NJ, i see changes in terminology and in governmental organization. there's not a one size fits all for the US.
richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
