2014-11-24 21:18 GMT+01:00 Minh Nguyen <m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>:
> Assuming this table reflects the actual state of the map, most countries > have chosen 4 for their state equivalents. > Actually, many countries do not have something like a "state equivalent", it is a particularity of the USA because they are a federal republic. > > 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.) > I was not going to get into discussion about cities and other lower level admin entities. Please lets stick to the state question. > > 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] > yes, this is also something I wanted to point to, because in the discussion for this style change it was argued that some countries, which currently do use level 3, should change that to level 4 (like the US), and I was arguing the other way round, that the US should probably change the states to level 3 instead. > > 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. > I am not sure why raising the importance would lead to less names displayed. If this holds true, the stylesheet would have to adopt to correct this IMHO. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
