On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > Should the various admin_level boundaries expect to be a hierarchy? I > would think that no city is split into two countries. In the US where a > what-people-think-of-as-city is split into two states, I think all cases > hvae separate cities on the sides of the state line. > > Why is CDP different from UPS delivery zone, or zip code, or any other > division by some other entity? > > Maybe CDP shouldn't be the same kind of political boundary tag and > instead something else, like us_census_boundary and then be related to > PMSA, SMSA, etc.
I won't dispute that line of thinking. In that case, maybe we should do something like boundary=statistical, statistical_unit=US:MSA|US:CSA|US:CDP|US:block_group|US:block|(others for other countries) and boundary=postal, addr:postcode=* and even, where we have the data, boundary=lot or boundary=parcel or boundary=property Regarding the first bit, I imagine some kind of standardization may occur in the future to replace statistical_unit the way admin_level replaced border_type. Regarding the second bit, why isn't this done already? Still, I'm thinking both of these approaches merit creating full-blown proposals on the Wiki. There's a concern in my mind about what to do when a single way is used as both an administrative and a statistical boundary, or some other conflict with the boundary=* key. My guess would be, administrative trumps postal trumps statistical trumps lot. Tagging on multiple relations would make the data complete. -- David "Smith" a.k.a. Vid the Kid a.k.a. Bír'd'in Does this font make me look fat? _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
