Re: [Tagging] fire district boundaries
2012/11/22 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: I wouldn't use boundary=admin with admin_level unless there is actually a hierarchical relationship with the levels above/below. Otherwise they should really be in their own hierarchy, using something like boundary=fire_service. +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] fire district boundaries
admin boundary levels 9 10 are unused in the US. i see some usage of level 9 for fire district boundaries in the US. opinions? thanks, richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire district boundaries
I wouldn't use boundary=admin with admin_level unless there is actually a hierarchical relationship with the levels above/below. Otherwise they should really be in their own hierarchy, using something like boundary=fire_service. AIUI the US fire departments are at the city or county level. Can a city/county have more than one FD within its borders? Can an FD's jurisdiction extend across local government boundaries? The points I'm trying to make are that: 1) a fire district is not a unit of local government, so it doesn't fit naturally with boundary=admin 2) the use of admin_level (the level bit) implies a hierarchy which may not be the case. The basic hierarchy is that the US consists of States which consist of Counties which have Cities (yes I know it's more complicated than that in practice). A City may have fire districts, but it may also have suburbs, police precincts etc which have little or no relationship to each other in terms of boundaries, although they are all subsets of the enclosing City. Perhaps all of these should be the same admin_level, one level below the city, with some distinguishing tag to separate police areas from fire etc. Excuse me if I have misunderstood (I am not an American) but I am just trying to keep different concepts separate, avoiding reuse of tags for conceptually different things because it seems easy. Colin admin boundary levels 9 10 are unused in the US. i see some usage of level 9 for fire district boundaries in the US. opinions? thanks, richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire district boundaries
On 11/22/12 4:11 PM, Colin Smale wrote: I wouldn't use boundary=admin with admin_level unless there is actually a hierarchical relationship with the levels above/below. Otherwise they should really be in their own hierarchy, using something like boundary=fire_service. AIUI the US fire departments are at the city or county level. Can a city/county have more than one FD within its borders? Can an FD's jurisdiction extend across local government boundaries? in New York, Counties are basically tiled with cities, and towns, and there may be incorporated villages within the towns. the towns are typically tiled by multiple volunteer fire departments; the town i live in, Sand Lake, has 3. Guilderland NY, with a denser population, has more. within a city, different companies have different response areas, so a municipal fire department would match up to the city boundary but would contain multiple boundaries for different engine companies. and i'm fine with calling it a different type of boundary. i have no firm opinions of my own on how to do this, i'm soliciting input. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire district boundaries
admin boundary levels 9 10 are unused in the US. i see some usage of level 9 for fire district boundaries in the US. I don't think we should use 9/10 for fire/school/etc. Those are not necessarily subsets of admin_level 8. If a state has a formal notion of something less than town (neighborhoods? as Boston and Newton have) as a *unit of government in general*, then that makes sense for 9. But there can be a dozen kinds of districts besides fire, like school, water, sewer, and so on. So the fire district isn't really a political/governing boundary in the same way. In Massachusetts, firefighing is by town, with a dozen+ mutual aid districts that I think are mostly sets of towns. So I can see tagging a boundary Massachusetts District 14, or some kind of ref tag with name/number, and having to make up a scheme for each state's way of doing this. So I think admin_level=9 is wrong for this, and there should be * boundary=fire_district name=name of district Used for entities that have a set of firefighting companies normally under command command and dispatch, and act in many ways similar to a town or city department, but with a geographic area of responsibility that is not a town. * boundary=fire_mutual_aid_district name=mutual aid scheme Used for an area within with there are city/town fire departments or fire districts, and among which there is a plan for mutual aid. A key difference between this and fire_district is that there is not typically common dispatch and command among the district. A not super clear example is the mutual aid districts sort of listed here: http://scan-ne.net/wiki/index.php?title=Middlesex_County_Fire_Departments Basically each city/town is in exactly one district. pgpfHa5HT1LGF.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire district boundaries
On 11/22/12 7:46 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: much which i've elided, but which is all basically fair. but i suspect there is considerable variation state to state, so whatever we do needs to be kind of flexible and not overly prescriptive. i'm still on the learning curve on how all this goes together. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
