On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhau...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Usually a CDP is simply an arbitrary area drawn by the Census Bureau >> for statistical purposes. Does it sound reasonable that these should >> at least not be treated as ordinary boundaries, if not (carefully) >> deleted altogether where not based on actual administrative >> boundaries? > There was a thread that touched on this a while back > (http://www.mail-archive.com/talk-us@openstreetmap.org/msg03117.html), > and I'll repeat what I said then: I don't think you can say "usually" > with the Census data. You really need to look at it on a > state-by-state basis. While in some states CDPs seem to be pretty > arbitrary, in MN they follow municipal boundaries and are updated > yearly. There must be other states where this is the case, too--I > can't imagine we're that far above average!
Sure - any said deletion or demotion should be handled by someone familiar with the details. If the CDP is actually an incorporated municipality, it should be retagged as such rather than the CDP default (place=locality). (There are worse problems in areas where annexations of individual properties are common - http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.47254&lon=-80.34265&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF (here Fort Pierce is a city and Fort Pierce North is a CDP) - but I don't see any solution to this other than finding better data or laboriously going annexation-by-annexation through the government records.) _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
