On 2013-01-01 2:18 PM, stevea wrote:
On 12/31/12 5:12 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
I'd argue that not all governmental boundaries need to be tagged as
boundary=administrative. In Ohio, we've started to retag CDP
boundaries with boundary=census and place=locality but without
admin_level. [1][2] They still show up in Nominatim as localities.
this is approximately what i was thinking should be done with CDPs.
This sounds workable to me, as well. It is agreeable that CDPs not have
an assigned admin_level, I was opening this for discussion to see if
there might be wider consensus. CDPs *are* created by the Bureau of the
Census, but the *SAs are not, they are created by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
Ah, my mistake. I'm not fundamentally opposed to putting in statistical
areas; I just think it may be less confusing to use some other value of
boundary=* (even with admin_level set), rather than overloading
boundary=administrative for what evidently isn't a straightforward
hierarchy of government entities. It's specialized information, less
important than your typical city/county distinctions when completing the
sentence "This business is located in..."
It *does* beg the question of what *should* be tagged as
boundary=administrative *and* have an admin_level tag. For example, my
local University of California campus has a polygon tagged
boundary=administrative, border_type=university (and amenity=university
+ name=*). Might/should it also be tagged admin_level=4? Even though
it partially overlaps (and largely is in) City Limits, it *is* an
administrative unit of state government (neither city/local nor county)
with its own police, fire and health-care infrastructure, its own
planning and development functions and a recent lawsuit (since
dismissed) between it and its "host" city, proving it and the city are
different entities.
I never really saw the need to tag state college campuses as
boundary=administrative, just amenity=university, but some of the UCs do
operate like cities unto themselves. The UC extension in Cincinnati ;-)
has a neighborhood council that almost corresponds to the campus
boundaries, so I mapped the neighborhood separately with admin_level=10.
However, I don't think it always makes sense to tag public property as
boundary=administrative based solely on who owns the land.
In Ohio [1], a city can own property outside its limits: the City of
Cincinnati recently sold a general aviation airport back to the suburb
it's in, but it wouldn't've made sense to tag the airport as an exclave
of Cincinnati. State law prohibits municipal exclaves, and it isn't as
if any "Welcome to Cincinnati" signs were posted there. Also, a city or
village can annex public property (such as a county park or public
university) without the government agency's consent. [2] People describe
public lands as being inside townships or municipalities, not as
enclaves of them.
The same question (admin_level=4) might also be asked about California
State Park boundaries...but they are *already* tagged with
admin_level=4, so at least there is precedent (thanks, Apo42) for
state-level "units" with specific administrative boundaries to be tagged
with admin_level. I'd like that to become widespread among all 50
states, which also implies national parks get tagged with
admin_level=2. State/national parks and state universities really do
have their own administrations, and this implies an admin_level tag.
I think you meant that national parks would get admin_level=4 and state
parks admin_level=6. Otherwise, you'd make national parks into nations.
I've only mapped a couple of state parks, but here I'm also of the
opinion that parks should get something other than
boundary=administrative. Following examples in California, I've been
overloading admin_level to indicate the admin_level of the operator (=2
for national, =4 for state, =6 for county). But if you combine
admin_level=4 with boundary=administrative for national parks and so on,
then national parks would conceptually be peers with states and state
parks peers with counties. They may be subordinate to the same
authority, but they aren't peers.
So instead I've been misusing boundary=national_park, combining it with
admin_level=4 for state parks. It stinks, but boundary=protected_area
looks like a good way out of this mess. [3][4]
What I found useful to do around here (where there are CDP polygons
entered from TIGER, but they have no admin_level tag) is to add a point
tagged hamlet=* or village=* or town=* (but not necessarily suburb=* as
that implies city subordination, nor city=* as that implies
incorporation) to the "approximate center point" of the CDP polygon,
along with a name=* tag that matches the name of the CDP. This point
might logically be a mathematical centroid, but I have found it more
useful to place this point at a more culturally significant point in the
"human center" of the community designated by the CDP. Usually this is
at or near a significant crossroads, where there might be a market, a
church, a school, a small commercial district, or the like.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense. TIGER 2008 came with place=hamlets for
all the 2010 CDPs in the Cincinnati area, all in very sensible
locations, so I just assumed the CDPs were a subset of all the
unincorporated areas in TIGER.
[1] Sorry to keep trotting out Ohio. It's like a whole 'nuther country
out there.
[2]
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20120609/NEWS0108/306090045/More-border-battles-communities-search-cash-
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
[4] https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4249
--
Minh Nguyen <m...@1ec5.org>
Jabber: m...@1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
