Re: [Talk-us] admin level for US states
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder why US States are tagged as admin_level=4, wouldn't it be more consistent with the rest of the map to have them tagged as level 3? Based on which uses of admin_level=3? A quick scan of the wiki shows admin_level=4 as states or provinces for several countries. I guess the biggest reason they are admin_level=4 now is, that seemed like the way to go in 2009[1], but that wouldn't prevent a change for a compelling reason. [1] wiki history of the admin_level page goes back to 2009, the tag use in USA could pre-date that. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] admin level for US states
I would point out that the legal status of U.S. States is slightly different than that of provinces (and likely of states in other countries). For one thing, U.S. States exist in their own right and do not drive their existence from a higher government (even though most of them were created by a higher government). German States and perhaps Swiss cantons might have the same status. -jack On November 24, 2014 9:44:22 AM EST, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder why US States are tagged as admin_level=4, wouldn't it be more consistent with the rest of the map to have them tagged as level 3? Based on which uses of admin_level=3? A quick scan of the wiki shows admin_level=4 as states or provinces for several countries. I guess the biggest reason they are admin_level=4 now is, that seemed like the way to go in 2009[1], but that wouldn't prevent a change for a compelling reason. [1] wiki history of the admin_level page goes back to 2009, the tag use in USA could pre-date that. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] admin level for US states
On 11/24/14 9:44 AM, Richard Weait wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder why US States are tagged as admin_level=4, wouldn't it be more consistent with the rest of the map to have them tagged as level 3? Based on which uses of admin_level=3? A quick scan of the wiki shows admin_level=4 as states or provinces for several countries. I guess the biggest reason they are admin_level=4 now is, that seemed like the way to go in 2009[1], but that wouldn't prevent a change for a compelling reason. i guess i'd like to hear if anyone has a compelling reason. it wouldn't be that hard to change (there aren't that many states), but what do we gain from the change? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] admin level for US states
On 11/24/2014 5:00 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I wonder why US States are tagged as admin_level=4, wouldn't it be more consistent with the rest of the map to have them tagged as level 3? admin_level=4 is consistent with Canada and Australia at the very least. I believe it's also consistent with Mexico, South Africa as well as other countries. Given that states are often grouped together for various purposes into regions, I'm skeptical about admin_level=3 anyways. The groupings vary depending on the purpose and we don't map them, but it does demonstrate that there's the concept of a grouping above states. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] admin level for US states
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jack Burke burke...@gmail.com wrote: I would point out that the legal status of U.S. States is slightly different than that of provinces (and likely of states in other countries). For one thing, U.S. States exist in their own right and do not drive their existence from a higher government (even though most of them were created by a higher government). German States and perhaps Swiss cantons might have the same status. -jack ...and German states and Swiss cantons are admin_level=4 according to the previously-linked page. I'd also note that page says admin_level was introduced in order that different borders can be rendered consistently among countries. That is, it's a worldwide rendering aid, not trying to make profound statements about legal minutiae. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] admin level for US states
2014-11-24 18:05 GMT+01:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: ...and German states and Swiss cantons are admin_level=4 according to the previously-linked page. yes, I am coming from a German-Italian perspective, where Italian regions are clearly less sovereign than German states, which again are less sovereign than US american states (all on level 4 currently). We need the levels 5 to 10 in Germany (all are in use, 3 is not in use). Correspondance of European entities should also be supported by the NUTS and LAU system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenclature_of_Territorial_Units_for_Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_administrative_unit cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] admin level for US states
And the England/Wales and /Scotland borders are all 4, too. If we're trying to reflect geopolitical status, these should absolutely be different than provinces. OTOH, if we're just interested in drawing pretty lines -jack On November 24, 2014 12:55:04 PM EST, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-11-24 18:05 GMT+01:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: ...and German states and Swiss cantons are admin_level=4 according to the previously-linked page. yes, I am coming from a German-Italian perspective, where Italian regions are clearly less sovereign than German states, which again are less sovereign than US american states (all on level 4 currently). We need the levels 5 to 10 in Germany (all are in use, 3 is not in use). Correspondance of European entities should also be supported by the NUTS and LAU system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenclature_of_Territorial_Units_for_Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_administrative_unit cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] admin level for US states
On 2014-11-24 05:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I wonder why US States are tagged as admin_level=4, wouldn't it be more consistent with the rest of the map to have them tagged as level 3? IIRC mappers in many regions of the world started out using even-numbered admin_levels only, skipping the odd numbers, so that more obscure groupings of jurisdictions could be inserted in the future without going fractional. And indeed, if you look at [1], admin_level=3 has been used primarily for regions: groups of provinces that have no separate administrative authority. Assuming this table reflects the actual state of the map, most countries have chosen 4 for their state equivalents. This level-skipping scheme extends all the way down to the smallest jurisdictions. Because the TIGERcnl import chose admin_level=8 for municipalities, skipping 7, I was able to tag Ohio townships as 7 without demoting all the state's cities and villages. [2] Even though neighboring Kentucky and West Virginia lack a level of government between counties and municipalities, it makes sense to keep cities in most states at the same admin_level, because they're functionally equivalent. (Virginia is a notable exception.) For context, there's an open pull request to have the Standard stylesheet render country and state labels based on administrative boundary polygons rather than place nodes. [3] Martin, how would the U.S. would be affected by this change? As it stands, U.S. state boundaries and labels appear at z4 and above, regardless of the state's size. Of the smallest states, Rhode Island (RI) appears at z4 and z6+, Connecticut (CT) appears at z4+, and Maryland (MD) and Delaware (DE) are both obscured at z4 by the label for Washington, D.C. At a glance, this change would seemingly omit most of the Northeastern states' labels at z4. It appears to set a minimum size of 750 way pixels at z4 and 3,000 at z5 for displaying a state's label. I don't really see those states' two-letter refs as being clutter. They're probably the most informative use of that space at z4 in a big country like the U.S. Unfortunately, they really clutter up the map in smaller countries, especially in Europe. [1] http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative [2] http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level [3] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1134 -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Who controls data: Google Maps, others erasing Hollywood sign, but it's in OSM
Hi all, first time post here (hope I'm doing everything right.) There's an interesting article at Gizmodo about erasing the Hollywood sign from Google Maps, Bing Maps, Apple Maps etc -- people who live on roads nearby were complaining about hikers and tourists, and they got the LA City Council, Google and a local website to change the walking directions so no one goes through their neighborhood anymore, instead pointing them to other viewpoints miles away. To me it's an interesting example of why OSM is important, since anyone can edit and add the data, not what the LA City Council or Google or some NIMBYs think is important: http://gizmodo.com/why-people-keep-trying-to-erase-the-hollywood-sign-from-1658084644 The trails mentioned in the article seem to be present in OSM, although with the gates mentioned: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3202722073#map=16/34.1339/-118.3214 Andrew -- 600,000 DC residents don't have a vote in Congress -- http://www.dcvote.org/ http://www.dcvote.org/about/index.cfm ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rand McNally is using OSM
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: Nice to see they are using OSM but it would be nicer to see it clearly labeled as using data from OSM. Rand McNally fixed their attribution, but it seem weak. The response Ryan Walker from Rand McNally gave to my inquiry was Oops, looks like we had a bug that wasn¹t showing the attribution link appropriately. We have fixed this and should be good now. Thanks for the feedback! I plan to ask them to make it clearer. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
